1993 PLP 587 (MLD)

(iii) To award costs of the petition to the petitioners. (iv) To grant any other relief as may be proper, legal and expedient in the interest of justice and as may be deemed warranted in the circumstances of the case:

2. The petitioners are running an ice factory, which is situated in Industrial S.I.T.E. Area No.ll/1, Block‑17, Korangi Township. The grievance of the petitioners is that an electric meter had been installed in their factory and the following payments were made by the petitioners since they started running their business. "BILLING DATE OF METER AMOUNT DATE OF MONTH READING BILLED PAYMENT April, 1983 21‑4‑1983 Rs.31,125.42 31‑5‑1983 May, 1983 22‑5‑1983 Rs.51,263.00 28‑6‑1983 June, 1983 22‑6‑1983 Rs.80,153.00 6‑8‑1983 July, 1983 25‑7‑1983 Rs.81,119.00 3‑9‑1983 August, 1983 27‑8‑1983 Rs.73,305.00 28‑9‑1983:" However, the petitioners received a supplementary bill dated 17‑2‑1985 from respondent No.l pertaining to the period between May, 1983 and August, 1983 demanding a payment of Rs.1,06,060 from them alleging that they had consumed 97,443 extra power units. The petitioners paid the aforesaid amount under threat of disconnection of the electric power. The petitioners again received another supplementary bill from respondent No.l whereby a sum of Rs.2,79,682 had been demanded for the period from April, 1982 to October, 1983 and for March, 1984. The contention of the petitioners is that the said demands are arbitrary and illegal as the meter had already been regularly read and checked every month by the representatives of respondent No.1 and the charges due from the petitioners had already been paid to the said respondent. However, the petitioners have also paid the first instalment of Rs.45,125 towards the amount due against the second bill, on account of similar threat from respondent No.1.

3. Although none has appeared on behalf of the respondents but we have perused the counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1. In the said counter‑affidavit it has been denied that the said supplementary bills had been issued by respondent No.1 illegally or improperly. According to the said respondent, tampering with the meter was reported by the Meter Testing Department of respondent No.1 in pursuance whereof the said supplementary bills were issued by the respondent. In respect of the supplementary bill dated 23‑6‑1986, it has been further contended that the said bill was issued on the basis of maximum demand indicated on the basis of standard formula which was applicable to the case of the petitioners.

4. Be that as it may, but we would like to point out that it is not possible for us to grant any of the reliefs to the petitioners while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Admittedly, the said respondent has not disconnected the power supply of the petitioners but has only issued notice of disconnection. Mr. Rehanul Hassan Farooqui has referred to the case of Tahir Amin v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. 1984 CLC 2245 wherein it was held that the principle embodied in the maxim audi alteram partem required notice to the petitioner prior to any disconnection of their power supply, however, the facts of the said case are distinguishable because in the present case, the petitioner have received a notice in this regard from respondent No.1 and admittedly their power supply has not yet been disconnected. So far as the declarations sought by the petitioners are concerned, the same cannot be granted without determining questions which A raise factual controversies which are not possible for us to determine while I exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution as has been just pointed out by us in this judgment. Whether the petitioners are liable to meet the supplementary demand of respondent No.1 for the reasons stated by the said respondent, is a question in regard to which no finding can be given by us unless evidence is led by the parties before us on the point. For the purpose of this Constitutional petition, interference would be called for only if it is shown to us that the procedure followed by respondent No.1 is illegal or improper or the action taken by the said respondent violates any law. Such does not appear to be the case in the present case. There is also no imminent danger of disconnection of the electric power of the petitioners as the petitioners have already paid the first instalment in respect of the bill dated 23‑6‑1986, a receipt in respect whereof has been appended to this petition.

5. The upshot of the discussion is that we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A‑1268/K Petition dismissed.