2001 PLP 2906 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD FEROZE GHANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEPCO (WAPDA) through Chief Executive, Khanewal Road, Multan and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2906 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FEROZE GHANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEPCO (WAPDA) through Chief Executive, Khanewal Road, Multan and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Electricity Act (IX of 1910)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2906 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Electricity Act (IX of 1910)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2906 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2906 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD FEROZE GHANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEPCO (WAPDA) through Chief Executive, Khanewal Road, Multan and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Miss Naeema Rana for Petitioner.
- Counsel for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th July, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.26 & 44‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Electric meter running slow‑‑‑Meter installed in premises of the consumer having been found slow during checking, notice was issued to the consumer to pay amount for eleven months‑‑‑Consumer had already paid amount to the extent of three months‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Practice of the Department being that bill for detection of slowness was not to be charged beyond three months' period, the amount already paid by the consumer was sufficient to meet the demand‑‑‑Department was restrained to charge snore than what had already been paid by the consumer. Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th July, 2000. Criminal Original has been riled on the allegation for violating the order dated 10‑12‑1998 passed by this Court in C.M. No.2 of 1998 in W.P. 11275 of 1998 wherein operation of the impugned order was suspended. Instead of deciding the Criminal Original alone, I would like to decide the writ petition today also.
2. The grievance voiced through this writ petition is that the petitioner is consumer of WAPDA and is running Ice factory. Notice dated 13‑8‑1998 has been issued wherein amount for 87388 units has been demanded for a period from the month of October, 1997 to August, 1998 for slowness of the meter which has been found to the tune of 32.5 % during the checking by the Circle Manager, MNT.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in many other cases decided by Wafaqi Mohtasib and by different Courts maximum previous bill for slowness of the meter is charged by WAPDA for only three months and not beyond that and the same has been paid by the consumer/petitioner after filing of the present petition.
4. Ihsan Rahim, Revenue Officer does not controvert the payment to the extent of about 3 months which comes to 37085 units but claims that bill for 50,000 units is still outstanding according to the determination by the competent authority.
5. Since it is practice of the Department under the decision from different Courts and also from Wafaqi Mohtasib that bill for detection of slowness is not to be charged beyond three months' period which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner has already been paid. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the amount already paid by the consumer/petitioner is sufficient to meet the demand/ends of justice. The department is restrained to charge more than what has already been paid and it is directed that in future the running bill will be issued to the petitioner for payment in due course. The bill already issued will be amended accordingly. With this observation this petition is disposed of. H.B.T./M‑891/L Order accordingly.