P L D 1994 Peshawar 192 (PLP)

Asif Marble Industry, small Industrial Estate, Mardan was billed by WAPDA‑for a sum of Rs.1,18,049 regarding the consumption of electricity which was challenged by Shakeel Ahmad, the petitioner‑proprietor of the Firm who was denied temporary injunction by the two Courts below in view of conditional bar contained in section 54(c) of the Electricity Act to the effect that before the grant or any such favour, the consumer shall have to deposit the disputed amount in Court. Conditional to this, the disconnection of the premises was stayed. This is a revision petition against the order dated 26‑4‑1993 of Civil Judge‑II, Mardan which was upheld by Additional District Judge‑I, Mardan on 26‑5‑1993.

2. So far as the provisions of section 54(c) of the Electricity Act are concerned, both the Courts below have rightly followed the law which in fact was inserted into Electricity Act of 1910 by way of an amendment through Ordinance LXII of 1979. So long as this insertion of section 54(c) subsists, the petitioner has no case but the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the plea that Ordinance LXII of 1979 through which the aforesaid section 54(c) was inserted, stands repealed through Ordinance XXVII of 1979, Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance, 1981 and that hence no conditional stay on deposit of amount could be ordered.

3. After perusal of Ordinance XXVII of 1979 coupled with various other rulings on the subject, one is constrained to hold that such repealing Ordinance has done no harm to the amending Ordinance XLII of 1981 which amendment, has already gone into the texture of the original Act. Azam Ali v. Custodian of Evacuee Property PLD 1968 Lahore 148 and Abdul Majeed v. Shahzada Asif Jan PLD 1982 Supreme Court 82 was relied upon by Mr. Abdul Latif Khan, learned counsel for the respondent stating that the view was further followed by our own High Court in Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Excise and Taxation Officer PLD 1984 Peshawar 215(b). A perusal of the aforesaid rulings is indicative of the fact that a repeal like the one in hand does not affect the continuance of any such amendment unless a different intention was expressly stated in the law by which the amendment was made. This factum is dearly explained in the last paragraph of section 7 of Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance, 1981. As the amending Ordinance LXII of 1979 does not carry any direction to the desired effect, therefore, such amendment would have a continued effect despite its subsequent repeal.

4. Mr. Muhammad Aman Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if such is the interpretation given to the repealing Ordinance it would amount to no repeal at all. He relied upon Hassan Noor v. Deputy Commissioner, Chitral PLD 1975 Pesh. 196 but the legal point involved in the case is altogether different. The cited case related to the effect of Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Application of Laws) Regulation, 1974 (Regulation I of 1974) which in the concerned area was promulgated on 17th of April 1974. As Regulation I of 1974 was practically the enforcement of concerned laws, therefore, the proceedings already pending before the Courts or Tribunals under the Riwaj were to be saved from the effect of such Regulation. The instant one is altogether a different situation where some amendments are apparently repealed but section 7 and the saving clause whereof has clearly laid down that the repeal of any law shall not affect the continuance of such law or such amendment unless a different intention was expressly stated in the law by which the amendment was made. The last paragraph of section 7 of Ordinance XXVII of 1981 commencing with the words "nor shall the repeal of any law???." is an additional para. as compared to section 7 of Regulation I of 1974 and hence is to be distinguished in letter and spirit. Harsh law it is but at the same time it is a law of the land.

5. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the repeal by Ordinance XXVII of 1981 of Ordinance LXII of 1979 does not have any effect on the continuance of section 54(c) of the Electricity Act. In this view of the matter, the conditional order by the two Courts below was rightly passed subject to the payment of the amount of bill. Revision petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./1551/P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.