1989 PLP 3868 (MLD)

AJMAL MIAN, C J--This petition is directed against an order dated 16-9-1981 passed by respondent No. 4 demanding a sum of Rs.2,94,926 being the alleged estimated cost within a period of one week failing which it was stated that the connection would be disconnected.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioners wanted to set up a Textile Mill at Kotri. They applied for electricity connection to respondent No.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they received an estimate for a sum of Rs. 11,730 being the estimate for installing the electricity and Rs.32,000 as a security on 9-2-1981. The petitioner paid the above two stuns on 11-2-1981. After that the electricity was installed. They received 3-monthly bills, which they paid. After that they received the impugned notice. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above notice has filed the present petition.

3. In support of the above petition, Mr. I. H. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the respondent No. 2 after having demanded the above two sums and after admitting on 15-3-1981 that all the formalities had been complied with, was not justified in raising the above demand and threatening the petitioner that in case of non-payment electricity supply would be disconnected. In furtherance of his above submission, he has referred to letter dated 15-3-1981 issued by an official of respondent No. 2 addressed to the Executive Engineer M. & T Division, WAPDA, Hyderabad in which it has been stated that the formalities have been complied with. On the other hand, Mr. Talmiz Burney, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5, has contended that the above original estimate was for 500 K.W., whereas the petitioner got connection for 1600 K.W. and, therefore, the second estimate was prepared. The respondents are Government functionary, they have a schedule for the charges, if factually the respondents for 1600 K.W. charged the amount which was demanded from the petitioner, also from the other consumers as well the mere fact that in the previous estimate a wrong figure was mentioned would not make any difference but in case the respondents charged the same amount, which was demanded from the petitioner for 1600 K.W., the impugned demand cannot be sustained if it is based on the revising of the rates. In any case; the petitioner was entitled to have the reason for the revision of the above amount, which was wanting in the impugned notice.

4. We would, therefore, declare the impugned notice as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect but would remand the case to respondent No. 4 with the direction to show the tariff of the charges to the petitioner and also the basis on which revised demand was issued and they may also explain as to how this figure has been worked out.

5. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./C-118/K Order accordingly.