2011 PLP 1701 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD NASEEM AKHTAR KHAN, J.

The petitioner- WAPDA has filed this revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 15-7-2003 passed by the Additional District Judge Pasrur District Sialkot, which resulted in the reversal of the judgment and decree dated 25-9-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge Pasrur in a suit for declaration filed by the respondents.

2. The civil revision is contested from the side of the respondents.

3. Admittedly the respondents are consumers of WAPDA under Account No.PA-70.-M/6540 in the name of Madina Floor Mills Railways Road, Pasur. The electric meter of the Mills was checked by a team of WAPDA officials and a detection bill was issued on 4-11-1978 for a sum of Rs.32,004.55 with the allegation that the multiplying factor was of two whereas the meter was installed for multiplying factor of one. The respondents challenged the multiplying factor detection bill through a suit for declaration on 8-9-1980. The learned Civil Court framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether the disputed bill dated 7-11-1978 is illegal, ultra vires, void and in-operative against the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP (2) Relief."

4. On behalf of the respondents/ plaintiffs Abdul Razaq appeared P.W.1., Muhammad Ramzan. Revenue Officer as P.W.2. Ashfaq Ahmad as P.W.3. and Younas as P.W.4.

5. Conversely, the petitioner/ defendant produced SDO as DW-1 and in their additional evidence Khalid Hussain as D.W.2. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties proceeded to dismiss the suit with the following observations:-- "As discussed above I am of the considered view that the detection bill and report has been made to save the loss to the Exchequer and Government dues have to be recovered from the plaintiff. There is no cogent evidence to disprove the detection bill, which has been prepared by the Government officials in discharge of their official duty. No malice has been shown on the part of person who has inspected the meter and has prepared this detection bill."

6. It is an admitted fact that the disputed meter of the respondents was checked by the Wapda officials in the absence of the respondents and further the respondents petitioner were not issued any notice to show cause before issuing the detection bill or assessment to the loss of the Wapda. The Wapda is an autonomous body and not the Government Department and the findings of the learned trial Court that the loss of the Exchequer/Government is misconceived. The respondents filed an appeal, which was decided through the impugned order, dated 15-7-2003 by the learned Additional District Judge Pasrur, who accepted the appeal and decreed the suit for declaration of the respondent. The evidence of the parties produced before the learned trial Court has sufficiently been discussed and there is no question of misreading or non-reading of evidence.

7. The meters of High consumption are fitted with C.T. (current transfer) device. There is also another apparatus called M.D.I. meter (maximum demand indicator), this type of connection is inspected and reading recorded by an officer at least of the rank of SDO every month. The disputed connection is admittedly fitted with this apparatus. In the presence of this regular and constant checking of the WAPDA authorities, such like alleged misdeed is not possible by the consumer. It is noteworthy that the Floor Mills has been wound up in 1980 but this litigation is continuing for the last 30 years. The learned appellate Court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity to be interfered with this judgment. There is no question of wrong exercise of jurisdiction. Hence, this revision petition is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs. M.U.Y./W-26/L Petition dismissed.