2005 PLP 2160 (YLR)

The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and the impugned notice, dated 30-6-2004 issued by respondent No.4 may kindly be declared as illegal, unlawful, mala fide, without any lawful authority and justification, null and void and the same may kindly be cancelled. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the titled writ petition, the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to immediately restore the electricity connection of the meter of the petitioner vide Reference No. 212265112767001 and presently 24-2265-0000300-4-R. Tariff B-1 installed in the name of the petitioner at his factory as the petitioner is ready to pay the detection bill. It is further prayed that the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to install a new meter at the residence of the petitioner as the Demand Notice has been deposited with the respondents, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay."

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of the respondents is without lawful authority and is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act. He further submits that respondents have prepared bogus and fabricated documents. He further submits that impugned notices of the respondents are not in consonance with the law laid down by the superior Courts. He further submits that respondents have initiated action against the petitioner for the purposes to abstract illegal amount from the petitioner and in fact the respondents have received Rs.93,000 from the petitioner, therefore, respondents have committed offence under sections 162/163, P.P.C. He further submits that this Court has ample jurisdiction to take action against the public functionaries, who have taken law in their hand.

3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that respondents issued notices to the petitioner on 9-8-2004. The respondents have restored the electricity connection of the petitioner on 14-8-2004. The petitioner has deposited the amount of the bill in question to the respondents on 17-8-2004. They further submit that petitioner's son has given affidavit that he has used the electricity in violation of the rules and regulations of the respondents. They further submit that meter has already been installed and the allegations of bribery etc. are denied in toto. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that respondents have disconnected the electricity connection of petitioner on 7-8-2004 whereas the respondents have issued notices to the petitioner on 9-8-2004, therefore, respondents have taken the law in their hands.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. It is settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the cases as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following eases:-- Nasir Jamal v. Zubeida Begum 1990 CLC 1069, Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehr Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC

220. The petitioner has deposited the disputed bill to the respondents on 17-8-2004 and the respondents have already restored the electricity connection and meter of the petitioner on 14-8-2004, therefore, writ petition has become infructous. In case the contents of the writ petition and contentions of learned counsel of the parties are put in a juxta-position then it brings the case in the area of disputed question of facts and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. and others 1973 SCMR

618. Even otherwise the Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Muhammad Riaz's case PLD 1995 Lahore

56. The petitioner has more than one alternative remedies as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Muhammad Riaz's case supra and also has a remedy to file complaint against the respondent before the competent Court.

6. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, keeping in view the allegation levelled by the learned counsel of the petitioner against the respondents, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2, who is directed to constitute a committee to probe into the matter. In case the committee finds any official/officer of the respondents guilty of any action, which is not in consonance with the Electricity Act and rules framed thereunder then he is directed to proceed against him under Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Respondent No.2 is directed to complete this process within three months and submit his report to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court within the stipulated period. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./M 1068/L Order accordingly.