2017 PLP 839 (YLR)
Haji RAB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE (PESCO) KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 839 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan, J |
| Parties | Haji RAB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE (PESCO) KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Electricity Act (IX of 1910) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 839 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Electricity Act (IX of 1910) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 839 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) bench comprising: Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 839 (YLR) (Haji RAB NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE (PESCO) KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yousaf Khan for Petitioner.
- Arif Rahm Ustrana for Respondent.
- 4. The learned counsel for petitioner produced PLD 2001 Lahore 31 in which his lordship has held that:--
Headnotes / Summary
S. 54-C
Bar on issuance of prohibitory order
Principle
Petitioner was consumer of electricity and assailed amount of electricity bill sent by Electric Supply company
Petitioner sought prohibition to disconnect electric supply without deposit of disputed bill
Bar on issuance of prohibitory order, under S. 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910, from disconnecting supply to premises without first asking petitioner to deposit due amount within a period of thirty days, could not be read in isolation
Amount assessed against petitioner was made disputed by the supply company itself, so unless it was determined finally, the provisions of S. 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910, could not be applied
High Court directed petitioner to deposit current bills of consumed units regularly
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. PLD 2001 Lah. 31 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, J.
Having been refused interim relief by two Courts below, the present petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the impugned orders dated 03.06.2016 and 25.06.2016.
2. Record transpired that the parties are litigating since long and decrees have been passed against the respondents in certain cases of excessive billing. Both the impugned orders are contradictory to each other as the learned trial Judge vide order dated 03.6.2016 has directed the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount within ten days under the provisions of section 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910. On this stipulation the learned trial Court has directed the respondents to restore the electricity of the premises of petitioner. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner challenged the order passed by learned trial Court in Civil Revision before learned District Judge, Tank, who too maintained the order of learned trial Court.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner produced PLD 2001 Lahore 31 in which his lordship has held that:-- "The answer is no, because a consumer is only liable to pay what has been correctly and scientifically determined against him under the provisions of section 26-A and not based on mere sweet will of a local formation".
5. As is evident from the bill for the month of March, 2016, the respondents themselves have made the payment disputed, so without first determining the actual outstanding amount as envisaged in the above said ruling, the respondents cannot ask the petitioner to deposit the amount adjudged by them against the petitioner on their own whims and wishes. It is for the Court to determine the actual amount due after recording pro and contra evidence.
6. In the instant case both the Courts below have relied upon section 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910. Though this section creates a bar for issuance of prohibitory order from disconnecting the supply to the premises without first asking the petitioner to deposit due amount within a period of thirty day, however, this section of law cannot be read in isolation.
7. As discussed above the amount assessed against the petitioner has been made disputed by the respondents themselves, so unless it is determined finally, the provisions of section 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910 cannot be applied. In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit the current bill of consumed units regularly. MH/303/P Petition allowed.