2009 PLP 600 (YLR)

AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.

The Manager (Commercial) KESC states that the KESC was taken-up by a private company in November, 2005 and this default pertains to the year 1997 onwards. I have noticed that for the three years prior to 1997 the officials of KESC had allowed the occupants to utilize electricity without being paying a single penny, for which Commercial Manager could not offer any plausible explanation. Action was taken in the year 1996 in the first place and F.I.R. was registered against the occupants. The connection for the first time was discontinued in the year 1997 which un authorizedly was restored according to Commercial Manager and again in 1998 electricity was disconnected, which was again restored un-authorizedly. What is unbelievable is that an occupant having the courage to restore the electricity unathorizedly three times was never prosecuted and the officials of the KESC were extending help in allowing unauthorized connection for year together. This property was attached in the year 2004 and the decree holder states that he cannot be made liable for payment of the amount outstanding, against the occupants. Ex facie, it is the responsibility of the KESC to recover its dues from the occupants. This responsibility cannot be shifted to the new entrant, who has no role to play. Learned counsel for KESC states that though the land revenue proceedings were initiated against the occupants who defaulted in payment of the electricity charges, in the year 2002 but these proceedings were never followed-up as per record. In any event, the officials of KESC cannot be exonerated and their responsibility cannot be shifted upon the new inductee, who under the orders of this Court had sought attachment of the property and now in the sale proceeds he, in law, is not obliged to pay to the KESC its dues which were outstanding against the occupants for which its officials are equally guilty of negligence. I, therefore, order that the KESC may hold enquiry as to why action was not taken for non-payment and fix the responsibility of the officials who were party to the default committed by the occupants as this amount cannot be recovered from a person who purchased a property through the court's orders. The KESC would be at liberty to recover the amounts from those officials of KESC which should start from the Chief Engineer, Industrial Zone to concerned Line Superin tendents, who were, posted at times and within whose jurisdiction this property falls. C.M.A. No. 1081 of 2007 is disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./A-6/K Order accordingly.