P L D 1988 Lahore 243 (PLP)

The petitioners Messrs M.N. Steel' Rerolling Mills (Private) Limited have moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the action of the respondents in disconnecting the electric connection of the petitioner may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence and further that a direction be issued to them for the restoration of the electric connection.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner company is the owner of a Rerolling Mills situate in the industrial area Badami Bagh, Lahore. The petitioner's premises are connected with the electricity line of the respondents for the last 12 years and the sanctioned electricity load in favour of the petitioner is 1500 KW and the Tariff B 3 is applicable in the case of the petitioner. It may be noted that in accordance with the above referred Tariff B-3 a sum Rupees one lac per month is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents.. This amount is paid by the petitioner irrespective of the amount of energy consumed by the petitioner. The petitioner has already paid the electricity charges to the respondents up to date and nothing is due from them to the respondents. In the month of December, 1986, on account of slump in the market, the petitioner was compelled to close down three units of their mills. Even during that period, the petitioner continued paying the respondents at the rate of Rupees one lac per month. Consequently, the petitioner suffered huge financial losses and in order to minimize the financial losses, the petitioner started running ARC Furnace of about half a ton capacity. This ARC Furnace was a part and parcel of the petitioner's mills and the said unit was situated within the premises of the petitioner's mills. However, the electricity load sanctioned to the petitioner always remained the same and admittedly never crossed the limit of 1500 KW. Apart from the above, when the ARC Furnace was run in its maximum capacity, it did not exceed 1100 KW as against the sanctioned electricity load of 1500 KW. Respondent No.2 without giving any prior notice to the petitioner, ordered disconnection of the electricity line of the petitioner on 301987. Even at the when the line was actually cut off, no reasons whatsoever were advanced by the respondent. However, later on the petitioner was told that disconnection had been taken on the ground that the petitioner was running an ARC Furnace instead of Recording Mills and, therefore, this amounted to the change of business. This action on the part of the respondent caused unemployment to 650 employees of the petitioner. The petitioners have to pay the wages to their employees as well as a sum of Rs.45,000 as an excise duty to the Government. This situation temporarily led the petitioner to surrender to the wishes of the respondents under protest and as a result thereof, the petitioner closed the above referred Furnace. The petitioner was compelled to file a civil suit in which ad interim stay was allowed but later on the same was vacated, vide the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 12 1987. It may be observed that for some time the electric connection of the petitioner was restored which was later on disconnected without any rhyme and reason.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully contended that the back ground of the case will amply demonstrate that action having been taken by the respondents is based on mala fides inasmuch as their action is not supported by any law on the subject. Learned counsel stated that the petitioner has been running his mills strictly in accordance with the conditions laid down by the parties in their agreement. Learned counsel stated that the sanctioned A electricity load in favour of the petitioner was 1500 KW and that they did not cross that limit of energy. Learned counsel stressed that the petitioner has been able to place on record the opinion of the Experts on the subject to show that the installation of the ARC Furnace in the petitioner's mills cannot and will not damage the Grid Station, nor will damage the electricity equipments of the people of the locality. Learned counsel stated that the remedy of civil suit is not the adequate and efficacious remedy and further at this stage there is no civil suit pending between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the petitioner had at one stage of the case, availed of the remedy of civil suit, and, therefore, they can not be permitted under law to file the instant writ petition. He has prayed that on this fact alone the writ of the petitioner is wholly incompetent and as such, the same should be dismissed with special costs. Learned counsel next vehemently argued that if the ARC Furnace is allowed to continue within the premises of the petitioner, the same shall definitely cause damage to the highly valuable machinery installed by them in their local Grid Station. It is apprehended by the learned counsel that this will further cause damage to the electric equipment of he people in the locality. Learned counsel stated that the action of the respondents whereby the electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected, was, wholly in line with the law on the subject and no injustice has been done to the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. I am of the view that the petitioner has not at all violated any law or for that matter, contravened any terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that if the electricity connections restored to the petitioner, this will spoil their valuable equipment installed by them in their Grid Station apart from the damage which will be caused to the electric instruments installed the people of the locality. This apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the respondents is neither here nor there. it is vividly conceded by the respondents during arguments as well as in the written statement filed by them, that the petitioner is running their mills and other units within the range of their sanctioned electricity on load. It is further conceded that the petitioner have paid their charges uptodate and they are not at all defaulters. This being so, I fail to understand as to how the furnace being run by the petitioner shall cause any damage to the Grid Station of the respondents or for that matter, to the electric equipments installed by the people of the. locality. On the contrary the petitioner has placed on record a number of documents showing that the apprehension of the respondents that their Grid Station shall be damaged considerably is wholly misplaced. In that behalf affidavit of Masood Aslam has been placed on the record showing that under similar circumstances Afzal Steel Furnace Badami Bagh, Taj Steel Furnace Badami Bagh Javed Steel Furnace Badami Bagh and Munawar Steel Furnace Badami Bagh, Lahore are, being run. Similarly, Rerolling Mills and furnaces are being run on a single electri coection and on joint feeder by M/S. Qadri Brothers, Badami Bagh, Lahore, Haji Brothers Baghbanpura, Lahore, and T.I. Steel Band Road, Lahore. In reply to the apprehension expressed by the respondents that people in the locality will raise serious objection if Furnace is allowed to run by the petitioner, the petitioner has paced on record the certificates of various owners of Rerolling and ARC Furnace Mills in the area. M/S. M.A. Din & Sons (Regd.) have given a declaration that they have no objection if the Steel ARC Furnace is run by the petitioner's mills. Similar certificates have been issued by M/S. Shahed Industries (Private) Limited, G.M. Nazir and Sons, Machine Tools Manufacturers Badami Bagh, Lahore, Nawab Brothers Badami Bagh, Lahore, and Madina Steel Industries Badami, Bagh, Lahore. Thus, the objection of the respondents that if the petitioner is allowed to run ARC Furnace, it will damage the electric equipments of the people of the locality, has successfully been met by the petitioner by producing the above referred documents. The petitioner has placed on record list Annexure P.1/1 to show that under similar circumstances several other companies are running their furnaces. Annexure P.1/2 also pertains to Messrs. Awan Steel, Munawar Steel, Taj Steel Mills and Capital Industries which mills are also running their furnaces. Annexure P.2/2 is the Expert's opinion given by Muhammad Arshad Javeed, Senior Electrical Engineer to repel the apprehension of the respondents that their electricity equipment shall be damaged if the connection to the petitioner is restored. The said Expert has opined that in case the petitioner consumes more electricity than their capacity, first of all this act will cause failure in their own system. He has next opined that in order to meet extraordinary situation, surge-protectors are available in all the Grid Stations to avoid the damage to the equipments of the said Grid Stations. The petitioner has placed on record another document Annexure P.2/3 by Engineer Abbas Ali Beg, B.Sc. Engg. Fellow 1.1313.(Pak.), Mem. 1.E.E.E. (New York) DIPL Motor Control (USA) M.G.1 (Management) (USA). He has certified that if an ARC Furnace. of 1500 KW is used, this will not damage the Grid Station equipment. In reply to these documents no contrary documents have been placed on record by the respondents. In view of the above, I do not find any substance whatsoever in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondents that if the petitioner's premises are allowed to run as they are, this will cause immense loss to the respondents as well as to other similar industries established in the area. Respondent No.2 in person is present. He has made a statement in Court. His only grievance in the case is that the main Grid Station shall be damaged and general consumers of the locality shall also be put to loss. He conceded that the petitioner is running his mills within this sanctioned electricity load. This being so, I do not find any justification for the respondents to resist the request of the petitioner for the restoration of their electricity connection. It is established beyond doubt that the petitioner is running his industrial premises in accordance with law and is admittedly consuming the electricity within his sanctioned load. Further it is admitted that the petitioner was never in arrears or e defaulter and has paid the electricity charges uptodate. 1, therefore, find that the action of the respondents depriving the petitioner of electricity was wholly unjustified, uncalled for and unwarranted in law. The petitioner made a vivid statement, that in case there is any complaint from the people of the area that the petitioner's Mills Is causing damage to their machinery, he will immediately stop running his ARC Furnace. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has availed of a remedy of civil suit and as such the writ is not competent, I am afraid I cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. In my considered view, the remedy of civil suit to meet such like situation is not adequate and speedy remedy. Besides the above, the remedy of suit was availed of by the petitioner and that did not come to some logical conclusion. 1, therefore, repel the contention of learned counsel for the respondents. In order to support his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has placed heavy reliance on Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmad Siddiky v. The Province Fast Pakistan etc. P L D 1968 S C 185, Sahibzadi Nasima Begum v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1982 C L C 2181, Muhammad Farooq Textile Mills Ltd. v. Special Court (Banking) of Sind P L D 1985 Kar. 1, Abdul Karim v. Additional Commissioner (R) Multan 1096 C L C 2403(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has lifted reliance on Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan P L D 1972 SC 279, Salahuddin etc. v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Digtillery Ltd,. P L D 1975 S C 244 and Ch. Abdul Hamid v. Deputy Commissioner etc. 1985 S C M R 359 in support of his contention that the writ petition is the only speedy and beneficial remedy open to an aggrieved person in such like situation. I have considered the rule laid bowl, in the above referred authorities. I am convince that the rule laid down in the above referred authorities cited by learned council for the respondents pertains to a different 'situation and is not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. As stated earlier, I am of the view that the civil suit in the case is not the adequate and speedy remedy open to the petitioner and the rule D laid down in the authorities cited above by the learned counsel for the petitioner is apt to the facts and circumstances of the in stand case. Therefore, the present writ proceedings initiated by the petitioner are justified in law and facts of the case.

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned action of the respondents disconnecting the electricity of the petitioner is, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The respondents are directed to immediately restore the electricity connection of the petitioner. The result is that this petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A. A./M-533/L Petition Accepted.