P L D 2006 Lahore 555 (PLP)
WAPDA and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD JAVID and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Lahore 555 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WAPDA and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD JAVID and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Electricity Act (IX of 1910) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Lahore 555 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Electricity Act (IX of 1910) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Lahore 555 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Lahore 555 (PLP) (WAPDA and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD JAVID and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aurang Zeb Mirza for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Ali Kausar, Asstt. Electric Inspector for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 26(6) & 26-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Electric Inspector
Scope
Electric Inspector has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter pertaining to detection bill and, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction or any opinion expressed thereon by the Electric Inspector was an illegal act.
Judgment & Decree
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.
This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 3693 of 2005 and 1434 of 2004.
2. Through these Writ Petitions the orders of the Electric Inspector are under review on grounds of jurisdiction. These orders relate to detection bills whereby he ordered that the detection bills will be charged on the basis of the 30% of load factor and 40% in the other case.
3. Whether in a detection bill, the Electric Inspector can sit in adjudication, is the main concern. In this connection, the judgment given by the apex Court in Civil Petition No.2971-L of 2004 is important and its relevant excerpt is reproduced below:-- "Thus, as the law declared stands today, in cases of theft of electricity or illegal abstraction of energy, the Electric Inspector has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute and it is only the Court of plenary jurisdiction who could resolve such a controversy."
4. In this judgment, reference is also made to the case of WAPDA and others v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another PLD 1995 Lab. 56 and to the case of Colony Textile Mills Multan v. Chief Executive, Multan Electricity Power Company Ltd. and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1679. The relevant portions of the said judgments relied upon by the Hon'ble apex Court are given in the judgment itself.
5. Respectfully agreeing to the interpretation of the Electricity Act as given by the apex Court, this Court is of the view that the Electric Inspector has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter pertaining to a detection bill and, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction or any opinion expressed thereon was an illegal act. Disposed of. M.B.A./W-11/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.