2009 PLP 1434 (MLD)

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.

Through this revision petition, the petitioners seek setting aside of the judgment, dated 31-5-2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore, whereby suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed, and also the judgment, dated 24-1-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the appeal of the petitioners/defendants was dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff is a consumer of electricity supplied by the petitioners/defendants bearing reference No.1221 0017200

3. He is regularly paying the charges for consumption of electricity. A month prior to the filing of suit, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit came to the factory of the respondent/plaintiff demanded illegal gratification and also threatened the respondent/plaintiff of dire consequences. The respondent/plaintiff refused the demand of the said defendants. They inspected the factory of the respondent along with staff illegally and got registered a criminal case under section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910 at P.S. Manga Mandi, Lahore and also issued a detection bill of .an amount of Rs.3130381 along with the monthly bill of Rs.145041. Therefore, respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, praying that the said detection bill in the sum of Rs.31,30,381 may be declared illegal, unlawful, ultra vires and against the law. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Civil 'Judge Ist Class, Lahore, decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff vide judgment, dated 31-5-2008. Against the said judgment, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide judgment, dated 24-1-2009. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment, the petitioners filed this civil revision.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the Courts below have failed to take into consideration that the detection bill amounting to Rs.31,30,381 was issued by the petitioners after the meter equipment was found to be damaged and the same was issued under section 26-A of the Electricity Act, 1910 and in view of the same, the respondent should have approached the Electric Inspector. It is further contended that according to section 38 of the Regulation of General, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, the jurisdiction only vests with the Electric Inspector to determine the slowness in the meter. as such, the both Courts below had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Messrs Narowal Flour Mills through Managing Director v. WADPA through Chairman and 3 others (2006 MLD 636), Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA and 4 others v. Abdul Shakoor through Legal Heirs (PLD 2008 Lahore 175) and Mian Muhammad Munir v. WAPDA and others (1983 CLC 211).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that no notice under section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 has been given to the respondent and in the absence of which, civil, suit of the respondent was maintainable and in this regard, reliance is placed upon Khalid Pervaiz v. Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA and another (1999 CLD 1591) and Imran Nazeer v. Saifullah Jan and others (PLD 2001 Lahore 31). It is further stated that the petitioners failed to associate the respondent while preparing the detection bill and the same had been issued arbitrarily. It is further stated that during the course of proceedings, the application for inspection of the electric meter had been made on 12-2-2004 and report was sought for and the matter was referred to the Electric Inspector, who in his report has stated that:-- "I am of the considered opinion that the detection bill charged by the respondents basing upon pick and choose method is totally illegal and void as there is no provisions under the law in which the respondents are empowered to use the above method. The defendants did. not prepare the detection bill on any technical grounds and the detection bill was charged just to cover the line losses." It is further stated that the appeal of the petitioners was badly time barred and in view of the same, the same has been dismissed. It is further stated that according to the law, power having volume-I reference 828-6 Code-6 WAPDA can charge bill for one reading cycling only and charge the bill from the respondent from its date of installation at the rate of 47.6 and slowness detection bill would be charged to the extent of 14682 units only but the petitioners have charged 1099000 units for 21 months. It is further stated that according to Ex.P

1. M.N.T. report, which consists of highups of WAPDA and the Army, there is no slowness in the meter and in view of the same, the civil suit was very much maintainable and the suit of the respondent was rightly ,decreed and the appeal of the petitioners was rightly dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned judgments as well as material available on the record.

6. The plaintiff/respondent challenged the detection bill amounting to Rs.31,30,

381. It squarely falls under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, conferring exclusive jurisdiction to an Electric Inspector. Reference can be made to Messrs Narowal Flour Mills through Managing Director v. WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others (2006 MLD 636), Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA and 4 others v. Abdul Shakoor through Legal Heirs (PLD 2008 Lahore 175) and a Full Bench of this Court in Water and Power Development Authority and another v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another (PLD 1995 Lahore 56), wherein it was observed as under:-- "Since the very jurisdiction of the Court did not extend to try such a lis, the assumption of jurisdiction, the trial of the suit and the judgments recorded by both the Courts stand on no better footing than without jurisdiction." Both the Courts below have failed to take notice of the legal position as to the jurisdiction of the Court and the maintainability of the suit as stated in Water and Power Development Authority and another v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another (PLD 1995 Lahore 56). In the precedent case, the learned Full Bench of this Court had taken the view that the controversies and disputes concerning the slowness of meter or other faults with the equipments fall within the jurisdiction of 'the Electric Inspector under section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The matter thus falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Electric Inspector.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that no notice under section 24 of the Electricity Act,,1910 has been given to the respondent and in the absence of which, civil suit of the respondent was maintainable has no force as the same is mandatory when discontinuation of the supply of electricity is to be made but in the instant case only a, detection bill of Rs.31,30,381 had been issued under section 26(6) of the' Electricity Act, 1910, as such, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the instant case.

8. A perusal of the judgments of the learned trial Courts as also of the learned appellate Court shows that they were oblivious of this aspect of the matter. Since the very jurisdiction of the Court did not extend to try such a lis, the assumption of jurisdiction, the trial of the suit and the judgments rendered by both the Courts below stand on no better footing than without jurisdiction. The same are, thus, liable to be set aside.

9. For what has been discussed above, this civil revision is accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside. The respondent, however,. may agitate the matter for the redressal of this grievance before the Electric Inspector in accordance with law. H.B.T./W-19/L Revision accepted.