2012 SC MR 906 (PLP)

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.

The petitioners through the instant petition has asked for initiation of proceedings against the respondents for committing contempt of Court by not implementing the order dated 8-11-2006 of this Court.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that though in the earlier round of litigation, this Court sent the matter to the Chairman, WAPDA to decide it after constituting a Committee consisting of three independent engineers of the relevant field vide order dated 11-12-2002. This order, the learned counsel submitted, was no doubt substituted but the Chairman WAPDA was not eliminated from the process. The learned counsel next contended that though this order is not susceptible to more than one interpretation yet the Chairman wrested a meaning of his own to eliminate himself from the process. Since the decision of the Committee, the learned counsel submitted, was not unanimous, a request was made to the Chairman to intervene and pass some decisive order, but his response was marred by hesitation and indecision, therefore; resort to this Court is the only way out.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that when the Chairman was eliminated from the arena and the Committee became the sole repository of power to decide the dispute, intervention of Chairman was hardly called for. Though, the learned counsel submitted, one of the members of the Committee struck a discordant note but that would not be significant when decision of majority went against the petitioners. Intervention of this Court, the learned counsel by concluding his arguments submitted, in any form cannot change the fate of the finding, therefore, it is not called for.

4. We have gone through the entire record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Before we discuss the controversy stirred before us, it is worthwhile to refer to order dated 11-12-2002 of this Court, whereby it by isposing of C.P.L.A. No.1278 of 2002 held as under:-- "We, therefore, keeping in view the nature of controversy, deem it proper to send this matter to the Chairman Wapda who shall constitute a committee consisting of independent engineers of the relevant field for assessment of the charges by evaluating the electricity consumed in the light of consideration mentioned in section 26-A of the Electricity Act, 1910 and submit report to the Chairman Wapda who shall finally decide the mater strictly in accordance with the provisions of Electricity Act, 1910."

6. Subsequently a review petition was filed which called for a change in the order which is reflected in paragraph-2 reproduced below:-- "

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not present but he had stated that if a neutral committee is appointed, he would have no objection. Therefore, in place of Chairman WAPDA the above persons are appointed as Committee to decide the dispute. The Committee is directed to do the needful in view of the observations made in the order under review. "

7. When the petitioners got an inkling that a finding adverse to them has been handed down by the Committee they again approached this Court through a Criminal Original Petition No.82 of 2009 which was dealt with by observing as under:-- "This petition has been filed for contempt of Court statedly in pursuance of order dated 8-11-2006 report has not been submitted so far, whereas learned counsel for the respondents placed on record a letter dated 15-9-2007 addressed to the Registrar. A perusal whereof indicates that two members out of three have submitted report, whereas the third member stated that he would express his viewpoint independently. In this behalf we are of the opinion that order of this Court with regard to the proceedings of the committee has been complied with and no contempt has been committed. However, the petitioner may avail remedy, if so desired, before the competent forum in view of the report submitted by the committee."

8. Once a finding has been handed down by the Committee, it would not be for us to comment upon that as this Court by no stretch of imagination can sit in judgment over the said finding as a Court of I appeal. It was in view of this essential aspect of the case that this Court while disposing of Criminal Original Petition No.82 of 2009 observed that petitioners may avail remedy, if so desired, before the competentforum in view of the finding submitted by the Committee. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, who is a senior counsel and having unique stature in the legal profession because of his background asked us to determine the remedy under the circumstances. We are afraid, we at the moment are not seized of a reference where we are required to exercise our advisory jurisdiction to advice the petitioners or to determine their future course in the matrix of the case. When this being the case, we do not think anything has been left with this court for being implemented. We, therefore, dismiss this petitioner. M.W.A./C-6/SC Petition dismissed.