2020 PLP 311 (MLD)
Messrs MIRAN JEE KAY FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS — Petitioner Versus NEPRA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 311 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs MIRAN JEE KAY FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS — Petitioner Versus NEPRA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act (XL of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 311 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act (XL of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 311 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 311 (MLD) (Messrs MIRAN JEE KAY FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS — Petitioner Versus NEPRA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Barrister Usman G. Rasheed Cheema for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 7 & 12A
Arrears of electricity bill recoverable from consumer
Incorrect billing by Power Company
Recovery of differential amount by Power Company
Arrears accumulated due to negligence of Power Company could not be waived
Scope
Petitioner impugned order of Appellate Board of National Electric Power Regulatory Authority ("NEPRA") whereby petitioner was found liable to pay for arrears of electricity bill
Contention of petitioner, inter alia, was that petitioner was billed at a lower rate due to negligence of Electricity Company's officials, and such arrears could not be subsequently recovered
While officers of the Power Company were negligent in remitting the bill for a certain period on basis of certain rates which were not applicable, however the same did not absolve liability accruing against petitioner who was liable to discharge such liability
No period of limitation had been prescribed for the Power Company to initiate recovery proceedings and petitioner could not be permitted to take advantage of negligence of its officials and could not be unjustly enriched by the same
No legitimate expectation existed in favour of petitioner to urge that such arrears were not due from petitioner or that the same be waived
No illegality existed in the impugned order
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID KARIM, J.
This constitutional petition challenges the order dated 7.3.2018 passed by the Appellate Board of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NFPRA). By the impugned order, the appeal filed by GEPCO was allowed and the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Provincial Office of Inspection, Islamabad was set aside. However, while doing so, the Board segregated the amount to be recovered from the petitioner in 35 monthly installments.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments in this Court did not deny primary facts which formed the basis of the impugned order. Also that for the period from December, 2009 to October, 2012, the petitioner was billed at MF = 80 instead of the applicable MF =
120. It is merely argued by the learned counsel that arrears could not be recovered for the period of three years for which the imposition was added in the bill for October, 2012. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any jurisdictional error on the part of NEPRA in coming to the conclusion that indeed the petitioner was liable for the payment of the arrears. It may be that the officers of GEPCO were negligent in remitting the bills for the period on the basis of applicable current Tariff but that does not absolve the liability to accrue against the petitioner and that the petitioner is oblige to discharge that liability. Clearly, there is no period of limitation provided within which GEPCO is entitled to initiate recovery proceedings and none was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of the negligence of GEPCO officials and having been unjustly enriched by that negligence ought to reimburse the amount of arrears which have accumulated for the said period. There is no legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner to urge that those arrears are not due from the petitioner and ought to be waived. Neither any law nor any rule was cited which would entitle the petitioner to the waiver of the amount remitted through the electricity bill for October, 2012. In fact, the Board of NEPRA has extended the benefit of staggering the amount of arrears to 35 monthly installments and this was a fair order under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. In view of the above, this petition is without merit and is dismissed. KMZ/M-188/L Petition dismissed.