2002 PLP 3395 (YLR)

(i) that the metering equipment became defective w.e.f. 2/94 till to date. Moreover, the bulk metering panel installed on 14‑1‑1995 shall be treated as billing meter w.e.f. 14‑1‑1995. (ii) that the electrical energy supplied to the consumer during the disputed period i.e. 2/94 to 14‑1‑1995 is estimated as the energy consumed during corresponding month of the year, 1993. The respondents are further directed to install an accurate billing metering equipment to avoid further complications.

3. Both the parties herein filed their respective appeals before the Advisory Board, Government of the Punjab, Lahore who vide consolidated decision dated 27‑9‑1995 dismissed WAPDA's appeal, and accepting consumer's appeal partially modified the order of Electric Inspector. Result of this decision is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ (i) The decision of Electric Inspector Lahore regarding declaring the disputed bill amounting to Rs.42,37,431 as illegal and charging of the appellants Company for the disputed period in 1994 on the basis of the consumption record during the corresponding period of the year 1993 is up held. However, the period during which in the opinion of the Electric Inspector, Lahore the KWH meter part of the metering equipment remained not correct is refixed as from June, 1994 to 15‑1‑1995. Consequently the charges on account of slowness of the KWH part of the metering equipment realised by the respondents WAPDA from the appellant‑Company for the periods from the appellant‑Company for the periods from 3/94 to 5/94 and from 6/94 to 1/95 as worked out in para. 22 above are declared unjustified and illegal. (ii) The fixed charges for the period from 3/94 to 1/95 during which the MDI part of the metering equipment remained not correct should be charged on the basis of the maximum demands recorded by the MDI during the period from 2/93 to 1/94 as has been worked in Para.22 above. (iii) The account of the appellant Company should be over‑hauled keeping in view the above decisions with regard to the accuracy of the metering equipment in dispute. 'The excess charges recovered from the appellant‑Company should be retuned or be adjusted in future bills.

4. Upon non‑implementation by petitioner authorities qua refund to or adjustment in future bills of the excess amount paid by the consumer, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.18715 of 1995 filed "Nazir Cotton Mills v. WAPDA and others" to seek implementation of the Advisory Board's judgment dated 27‑9‑1995.

5. Petitioners, however, challenged orders dated 1‑6‑1995 and 27‑9‑1995 respectively passed by the learned Inspector and the learned Advisory Board through Writ Petition No.3335 of 1996 titled "WAPDA v. Nazir Cotton Mills." 5‑A. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal below erred at Law by ignoring the report of WAPDA staff qua 36.33% slowness of the metering equipment and both the Tribunals below applied different methods to evaluate the outstanding and mode of measure so applied was incorrect. It was further contended that MIDI itself was found to be defective, wherefor, the billing of Rs.42,37,431 raised by WAPDA Authorities against the consumer on the basis of consumption data should have been accepted unquestionably. It was further contended that Electric Inspector as well as Advisory Board exceeded their jurisdiction as those Tribunals could only assume jurisdiction in case of defectiveness of the meter or the measuring apparatus as per the principles laid down in the cases of "WAPDA and others v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and others (PLD 1995 Lah. 56) and these Tribunals had no Authority to determine the amount to be charged by the WAPDA from its consumers in case of slowness of meter.

6. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondent‑consumer supported the impugned judgment and relied upon the judgment 6‑12‑2001 of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.7289 of 1993 titled "WAPDA v. Messrs Crown Steel Industries etc" and judgment dated 7‑4‑1976 titled "M/S Friends Cooperation Steel Casting Mills v. WAPDA and others" in Writ Petition 77 of 1976 to contend that the nominated forums of experts under Electricity Act were Electric Inspector and the Advisory Board, who upon the basis of detailed and well‑reasoned judgments, settled all the questions of fact in their judgments and this Court lacked jurisdiction to re‑initiate inquiry in exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and, that the amount as well as the period was also settled by Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, on the basis of evidence before them, therefore, this Court cannot re‑inquire into the matter as an appellate Court.

7. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record placed alongwith the writ petitions. As per the contents of the writ petitions and the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent‑consumer was issued a bill of, Rs.42,37,431 (on account of 36.33% slowness of metering equipment) covering period of 10 months. The whole thrust of WAPDA's case was defectiveness of the metering equipment, wherefore, as per the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of "Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and others (PLD 1995 Lah.56). Such a dispute was referable to the Electric Inspector for decision upon the defect', in the metering equipment or measuring apparatus and to determine the consequence's amount chargeable from the consumer. In view thereof, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners qua absence of jurisdiction in the Electric Inspector and the appellate Advisory Board in this matter has no merit. The impugned orders respectively passed by the Electric Inspector‑and Advisory Board show that both the Tribunals thoroughly analysed the evidence of the case, the technical aspects of the matter the alleged defect and slowness of the meter and thus through a detailed and well‑reasoned orders recorded their conclusions which have been reproduced above. The said forums being the nominated forums of experts under the provisions of Electricity Act held their inquiries, investigated the matter and came to the conclusions of facts, in which this Court, in absence of perversity or patent illegality, cannot be venture to interfere in the exercise, of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

8. In view thereof I, do not find any substance in Writ Petition No.3335 of 1996 titled "WAPDA v. Nazir Cotton Mills" and the same is dismissed with costs.

9. As a consequence Writ Petition No.18715 of 1995 titled "Nazir Cotton Mills v. WAPDA and others" is accepted with costs and WAPDA Authorities are directed to implement the order dated 27‑9‑1995 passed by the Advisory Board, Government of Punjab, Lahore within a period of 30 days without fail. H.B.T./W‑60/L Order accordingly.