1999 PLP 1540 (CLC)

4. Relying on the aforementioned judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reduction in the load has to become operative from the date of the application in view of the precedents reflected in the aforementioned case.

5. Writ Petition No.13131 of 1998 was filed by the same petitioner on almost same facts. The prayer was:‑‑ "(i) Comply with the restoration of connection order issued vide Serial No.63, dated 6‑6‑1991. (ii) Not to claim fixed, charges after the actual disconnection of the electricity supply; (iii) Electricity load be reduced from 65.72 K.W. to 27 K.W. Any other relief to which the petitioner is found entitled may also be granted."

6. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/WAPDA the petitioner wanted the reduction of the load and this was allowed subject to payment of coats which he has challenged. That until the cost was paid reduction in load was not possible and the whole exercise would be meaningless. He referred to the prayer part of the plaint and said that it hardly disclosed the cause of action. But according to him the relief asked for in the writ petition was more sensible. That as the writ petition had been filed subsequently, it will take the place of the revision petition and, therefore, this Court should confine itself only to the writ petition.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has deposited the cost of material and WAPDA should have no hesitation in reducing the load.

8. The case WAPDA v. Jannat Ice Factory had somewhat different grounds. In that case, the respondent i.e. Jannat Ice Factory had physically reduced the load itself w.e.f. the date of his application. In this particular case, the petitioner is asking for the reduction in the load which is to be made by WAPDA, According to WAPDA, the reduction was to be made after depositing of the cost for reduction of the load. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this cost has been paid not only that a fresh test report has also been submitted and as yet neither the load was being reduced nor the electricity was being reconnected to his premises which had been disconnected by WAPDA in the past.

9. The rationale behind the levy of fixed charges during the period of temporary disconnection have been explained in the case of WAPDA v. Makka Ice Factory PLD 1991 SC 813 wherein it was said:‑‑ "The rationale behind the levy of minimum charges is that during the period of temporary disconnection the Authority has to keep ready with the sanctioned load and continue to maintain the necessary set up in this behalf, to make the energy available to the consumer when asked for. The consumer, therefore, has to be burdened with all incidental charges including service charges."

10. In the case of Jannat Ice Factory, as the load had been reduced physically by the consumer it made a good case for the respondents in that case to claim for benefit under the reduced load from the date of the reduction. In this particular case, the costs for reduction is paid but no action has been taken by WAPDA for physically reducing the load.

11. Consequently, this Court feels that the day from which the reduced load is to be recorded will be the date on which the payment has been made pursuant to the application made by the plaintiff asking for the reduction. There should have been no excuse with WAPDA in delaying the reduction of the load after the payment of the cost and the new test report being submitted. The delay on the part of WAPDA is, therefore, at its own cost.

12. As the writ petition has been filed subsequently, on the same facts, it will take the place of the revision petition: The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed on this account.

13. Anyway while exercising the Constitutional powers vested in this Court, the Superintending Engineer, Okara whose name was mentioned by the learned counsel for the WAPDA is directed to personally ensure that the following reliefs are provided to the petitioner within a period of one month on the receipt of copy of this judgment: (a) His application for reduction of load is accepted; (b) After verification about the payment made against the costs of reduction of load, the minimum fixed charges should be charged from the petitioner on the basis of the reduced load from the date of the payment of these charges. (c) If the charges were paid, his energy connection be restored without delay.

14. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of with further direction to the Superintending Engineer, WAPDA, Okara to submit a report of compliance to the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court by 1st of August, 1999. M.B.A./S-367/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.