2011 PLP 161 (CLC)
ZAFAR ALI — Petitioner Versus WAFAQI MOHTASIB (OMBUDSMAN) and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 161 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAFAR ALI — Petitioner Versus WAFAQI MOHTASIB (OMBUDSMAN) and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (1 of 1983) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 161 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (1 of 1983) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 161 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 161 (CLC) (ZAFAR ALI — Petitioner Versus WAFAQI MOHTASIB (OMBUDSMAN) and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Aslam Nadeem for Petitioner.
- Jawad Hassan, Additional Advocate-General (on Court's call).
- 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General regarding the maintainability of the instant petition.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 9 & 32
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had prayed for setting aside order whereby the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) had dismissed his complaint--Petitioner had filed constitutional petition without availing the remedy of representation before the President of Pakistan, thus had not availed the alternative efficacious remedy available to him under the law
Even otherwise, correctness of amount of electricity/detection bill was a factual controversy, which could only be resolved after recording of evidence; and such exercise could not be undertaken by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction
Consumer who wished to challenge a detection bill, could seek his remedy under general civil law by initiating appropriate proceedings before the court of plenary jurisdiction
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.
Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 30-9-2010, whereby the leaned Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) has dismissed the complaint of the present petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for passing a direction to respondents Nos.3 and 4 to comply with the earlier order of the Wafaqi Mohtisab (Ombudsman), dated 14-12-2009. The petitioner also solicited an order for restraining respondents Nos.2 to 4 to disconnect his electricity connection or charge illegal bill from him.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that there is a dispute between the petitioner and GEPCO regarding the correctness of the electricity bill which was agitated before the learned Wafaqi Mostasib (Ombudsman) and decided on 14-12-2009 and 30-9-2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has sent a bill of Rs.67,805 including the previous disputed charges as well as amount of detection bill.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General regarding the maintainability of the instant petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court as to how a writ petition is maintainable against an order passed by the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib without availing the remedy of a representation before the President of Pakistan. In the instant case, the petitioner has not availed the alternative efficacious remedy available to him under the law. Even otherwise, correctness of the amount of, electricity/detection bill is a factual controversy, which could only be resolved after recording of evidence and this exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. The consumer, who wishes to challenge a detection bill, can seek his remedy under General Civil Law by initiating appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court of plenary jurisdiction. Hence, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./Z-53/L Petition dismissed.