2002 PLP 3220 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 35, 36, 39 & 44‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Issuance of detection bill‑‑‑Earlier detection bill was issued to the‑consumer on ground that on checking electric meter by S.D.O.(E) it was found "stuck"‑‑‑Said bill issued for period between 12/1999 to 1/2000 prepared on basis of 202 load factor, was paid by the consumer‑‑‑Functionary of the Authority again checked meter and found its side seals tampered with and issued fresh bill for period 7/1999 to 2/2000 on basis of 40% load factor‑‑‑Electric Inspector after holding necessary proceedings declared the second bill as illegal‑‑‑Authority's appeal filed before Advisory Board having been rejected, Authority had filed Constitutional petition in which it was alleged that Competent Authority who examined the meter being S.D. O. (M & T), earlier inspection of meter as well as payment of bill had to be ignored‑‑‑No instruction provision had been cited by the Authority in support of said contention‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Consumer could not be vexed twice for the same cause‑‑‑Authority was to restore order and discipline in working‑‑‑Consumer in any case stood absolved once he was punished for alleged act/omission. Mian Khurshid Alam Ramay for Petitioners. Dr. Ehsan‑ul‑Haque Khan for Respondent No.

1. Petitioners issued a detection bill to respondent No.1 in the sum of Rs.7,778, which was duly paid. The bill was issued on the ground that in February, 2000, when the meter was checked by SDO(E), it was found "stuck". The period of bill was 12/1999 to 1/2000 and it was prepared on the basis of 20% load factor and 11 kw load. Subsequently SDO(M&T) again checked the meter on 28‑3‑2000 found the side seals tampered and issued a fresh bill for period 7/1999 to 4/2000, in the sum Rs.2,13,

514. The second bill was prepared on the basis of 40% load factor and 17 kw load. This second bill was questioned before the Electric Inspector, who after holding the necessary proceedings, declared the same as illegal. Petitioner's appeal before the Advisory Board was also rejected.

2. In this Constitutional petition it is urged that the competent officer who examined the meter was SDO(M&T), therefore, the earlier inspection as well as payment of the bill has to be ignored. No instruction/provision has been cited in support of the above contention. However, assuming that this is so, in my judgment, the consumer cannot be vexed twice for the same cause. It is for the petitioners to restore order and discipline in this working. The consumer in any case stands absolved once he is "punished" for alleged act/omission.

3. No ground for interference is made Dismissed. H.B.T./W‑63/L Petition dismissed.