1987 PLP 1981 (SCMR)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The supply of electricity to the premises of the respondents in these two petitions was disconnected and the meters removed by the petitioners or the allegation that the respondents had committed theft of electricity. Subsequently, the respondents were served with detection bills. The respondents filed suits inter alia to seek a declaration that disconnection of electricity supply and the subsequent issuance of detection bills were illegal and for injunction for the restoration of their electricity connection. Alongwith the suits, they also filed applications praying for interim relief by way of restoration of electric supply pendente lite. Their applications for interim relief were rejected by the trial Court and their appeals before the Additional District Judge also remained unsuccessful. They then filed civil revisions in the High Court.

2. During the pendency of the revision petitions, the respondents placed before the High Court reports of the Electric Inspector wherein he had stated that as the meters removed from the premises of the respondents were not available, it could not be said that there had, in fact, been any theft of electric energy. Taking into consideration these reports, a learned Single Judge in the High Court directed the petitioners to restore the electric supply of the respondents during the pendency of the civil revisions. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.

3. In support of these petitions, it is contended that the High Court was not justified, while the civil revisions were still pending, to direct the restoration of the electric connections of the respondents just for the reason that the Electric Inspector, on account of the non-availability of the meters, was unable to decide whether there had been a theft of electricity or not. On the other hand, the petitioners had definite evidence in the form of the Testing Laboratory report that the meters in question had been tampered with. Apart from this, the petitioners had weighty questions of law to raise, with regard to the maintainability of the suits and the civil revisions. By issuing the impugned direction, the learned Single Judge had granted a relief to the respondents to which they would have been entitled if they had succeeded in the suits.

4. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners do need examination. However, as the civil revisions are still pending in the High Court, we would not like to make any comment which might affect their final disposal. Let these petitions remain pending. The parties should approach the High Court for seeking early disposal of the revision petitions. In the meanwhile the orders of the learned Single Judge will remain suspended. S.Q./W-11/S Order accordingly.