1997 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD JAMIL SHAHID — Petitioner Versus SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELECTRICITY Wapda, Muridke And Others — Respondents
| Citation | 1997 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAMIL SHAHID — Petitioner Versus SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELECTRICITY Wapda, Muridke And Others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD JAMIL SHAHID — Petitioner Versus SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELECTRICITY Wapda, Muridke And Others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Khaliq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 491
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss.81 & 82-- Habeas corpus petition
Detention for non-payment of arrears of electricity charges
Arrest and detention of any person under S.82 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 could not take place without having issued to him a prior notice in terms of S.81 thereof
No such notice was issued to the detenu and even the amount regarding arrears of electricity charges due against him was not determined
Detention of detenu, in the circumstances, was illegal and he was directed to be set at liberty accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Khaliq for Petitioner. Bailiff has produced the detenu in Court. According to the respondents, present in Court, the detenu is liable t6 pay a substantial amount bill over Rs.1,00,000 as arrears of the electricity bill installed in the premises, which according to them, still stands in his name.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the industrial concern was sold by the petitioner as far back as on 28-3-1979 through a registered deed, in favour of Aman Ullah and others-vendees who have been consuming electricity though no change was effected in the WAPDA record about this sale.
3. According to him the detenu was not issued any show-cause notice before his arrest was effected and as such the detention of the Fateh Ilahi detenu is illegal.
4. I have gone through the papers produced by the Tehsildar (Recovery) respondent No.6. There is no record of any notice issued to the detenu about his alleged liability prior to his arrest.
5. Arrest and detention of any person under section 82 of Land Revenue Act, can take place only if a prior notice in terms of section 81 had been issued. This was not done in the instant case. No determination of amount due against the detenu took place and he was straightaway apprehended and detained. Such a detention is clearly illegal. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
6. It shall be open to respondents Nos. l to 6 and 8 to proceed in accordance with law to effect recovery of the alleged arrears of electricity bills from whosoever is held liable for the same. N.H.Q./M-269/L Petition accepted.