2000 PLP 774 (MLD)

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is directed against the demand of electricity bill of Rs.3,82,55,846 raised by the respondent against the petitioner‑hospital.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on application of the petitioner vide Letter No.8607‑10/MDCS/DG (R&CP) 58004 dated 23‑10‑1994 conversion in the tariff from A‑2 to C‑2 (c) was sanctioned Vide Notification rro.415‑476/GMS/TARIFF/T‑21(VOL‑X), dated 9‑7‑1995 issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 13(1) read with section 12 and section 25(2) of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, the respondent promulgated Schedule of Electricity Tariffs providing different electricity tariffs for different categories of consumers. According to the petitioner's bulk supply from one specific point for further distribution in the premises to the various nursing units, separate blocks, nursing school, hostel, medical college, corporated office and other area was made available which fulfill the formalities mentioned in the bulk supply Tarriff C‑2(c). The petitioners' bills were issued under Tariff C‑2 (c) since the month of December, 1994 onwards.

3. The grievance of the petitioners arise on receipt of bill for the month of July 1999 whereby the tariff was altered from C‑2 (c) to A‑2, It is alleged that this conversion is unlawful without jurisdiction and respondent has no authority to change the tariff of the petitioners and demand huge amount of Rs.3,82,55,846 as arrears for the last six years being the difference between the two tariffs.

4. The respondent submitted comments to writ petition wherein various legal objections were raised and at the same time the issuance of impugned bill was defended primarily on the ground that conversion sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 23‑10‑1994 was illegal,, procedure through connivance with the concerted officer at relevant time who is being proceeded departmentally for 'showing undue favour to the petitioners in flagrant violation of applicable tariff. The petitioner is a private hospital run on commercial basis and is not a trust hospital registered under the Trust Act and has no comparison with Shaukat Khanum Memorial Hospital or Mls. Sharif Medical City Raiwind. Initially on 22‑2‑1993 connection was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner under A‑2 tariff with his agreement. Later on, it was converted to C‑2 on 23‑10‑1994 with the connivance of staff of the respondent against whom inquiry has already been initiated. According to the comments submitted by the respondent C‑2 Tariff can only be given to Railways, M.E.S.,P.A.F. Cantonment Boards and other Government and Semi‑Government and approved institutions having their own distribution facilities. The petitioner is neither a Government or a Semi‑Government approved institution nor has its own distribution facility system for resale as required ‑for C‑2 tariff. The petitioner has applied for the electricity connection to the respondent for tariff C‑2 on 17‑9‑1992, however, later on he moved an application dated 8‑2‑1993 for grant of tariff A‑2 instead of A‑2 and B‑

2. The petitioner agreed to follow up the case for C‑2 tariff as per instructions of the respondent after proper investigation of load. Applicable tariff A‑2 in the case of petitioners was approved vide letter dated 22‑2‑1993 which was accepted by him petitioner has been paying the bills according to tariff A‑

2. The request of the petitioner of balk supply of electricity under tariff C‑2 was turned down as he did not qualify for its requirements neither possess necessary infrastructure as required under tariff C‑2.

5. The petitioner once again moved an application for conversion of tariff from A‑2 to C‑2 (Bulk) vide letter dated 13‑10‑1994. On the said representation the Director‑General (R&CP) converted the tariffs A‑2 to C‑2 (Bulk) and intimated the petitioner and other concerned vide letter dated 23‑10‑1994 just 10 days after the submissions of the application. During 4udit in‑ the year 1995, it transpired that the tariff made applicable to the petitioner was incorrect and in violation of the law and an inquiry has been initiated against the officer, who sanctioned conversion of tariff C‑2 and at the same time on the basis of aforesaid audit objection the tariff has been restored back to A‑2 and impugned bill was accordingly issued which includes arrears as well.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conversion from C‑2 tariff to A‑2 has been affected without any show‑cause notice to the petitioner through letter dated 21‑7‑1999 in pursuance whereof the impugned bill has been issued. The conversion from tariffs A‑2 to C‑2 was made by the competent Authority on 23‑10‑1994 after going through relevant material, therefore, the aforesaid sanctioned could not be withdrawn through letter dated 21‑7‑1999.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent WAPDA on the other hand submits that the petitioner with the connivance of the then Director‑General Farman Ali Shah on his application dated 13‑10‑1994 got the tariff changed on 23‑10‑1994 just after 10 days. He has not examined the relevant record before allowing the conversion. The petitioner is not entitled to C‑2 tariff under the law. It is a private hospital and facility of Tariff C‑2 is only permissible to Trust hospital. Admittedly the hospital is being run by company registered under the Companies Ordinance and is registered with Stock Exchange which fact is not denied by the other side.

8. I heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant record. Tariff A‑2 is applicable in the following circumstances as is evident from the tariff schedule attached at page 20 of comments. TARIFF A‑2 FOR GENERAL SUPPLY (A.C.) Particulars Consumption Energy during the charges month per unit For supply to all Government and Semi‑Government and Semi -Government Office and Institutions, Commercial Office and commercial establishments such as shops, hotels, restaurants private hospitals, clinics and dispensaries, places of entertainment like cinemas, theaters and clubs, rest houses and government lodges etc. Upto 100 units 100 paisa Above 100 units‑111 paisa A‑MINIMUM CHARGES There shall be a minimum charge of Rs.17.00 per point of supply (i.e. per metering point) in respect of supply charges under this tariff, even if no energy is consumed during the month. The charges for D.C. supply, given at the discretion of the Authority, shall be 115 per cent of the charges for A.C. supply calculated at the above rate. TARIFF C‑2 FOR BULK SUPPLY AT 11 KV AND 33 KV TO: ‑‑ (i) Licensees (licensed under Part II of the Electricity Act, 1910, to supply energy within their area of supply) and Non‑Licensees (Permitted under Part III of the Electricity Act, 1910 to supply energy within their area of supply). (ii) P.O. F. at Wah only. (iii) Other consumers e.g. Railways, M.E.S., P.A.F., Cantonment Boards and other Government and Semi‑Government and approved institutions having their own distribution facilities within their respective jurisdiction. The perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly indicates that the private Hospitals are not entitled to Tariff C‑2 and fall in the category of Tariff A‑

2. The petitioners on the mere ground of bulk supply cannot claim Tariff C‑

2. The petitioner does not fulfil the requisite conditions prescribed under the law. It is a private hospital, commercial organization run by the Company registered with Stock Exchange. The conversion of Tariff C‑2 is available to the trust hospitals, the words, Shifa International Hospital suggest that it is not a trust hospital and is a commercial organization. The validity of order of conversion made by the Director‑General on 23‑10‑1994 is under serious clouds as the officer is facing departmental inquiry on account of said order on the basis of audit objection. Respondents subsequently considering all aspects held joint site verification and on receipt of report set aside the earlier conversion order and resorted the original Tariff A‑2 of the petitioner vide letter dated 21‑7‑1999. The aforesaid letter was issued after scrutinising the entire case, going through joint site verification report and other relevant material, the impugned bill was rightly issued thereafter. The conversion order having been recalled petitioners cannot claim promissory estoppel against respondent as laid iii the case of Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (1992 SCMR 1652). Doctrine of promissory estoppel is subject to the following ‑limitations: ‑‑ (i) the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against the legislature or the laws framed by it because the legislature cannot make a representation; (ii) promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for directing the doing of the thing which was against the law when the representation was made or the promise held out; (iii) no agency or authority can be held bound by a promise or representation not lawfully extended or given; (iv) the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not apply where no steps have been taken consequent to the representation or inducement so as to irrevocably commit the property or the reputation of the party invoking it; and (v) the party which has indulged in fraud or collusion for obtaining some benefits under the representation cannot be rewarded by the enforcement of the promise.

10. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court the petitioners cannot be permitted to gain benefit of the conversion order passed by an officer against the expressed provisions of law.

11. The grievance of the petitioner that he has been condemned unheard is too technical in nature. Firstly he agreed to Tariff A‑2 in the year 1993 subsequently he got his conversion to C‑2 in violation of Schedule. The conversion was sanctioned in haste without obtaining comments, record or report from concerned officers. This is in fact an administrative order where right of hearing cannot be pressed into service. Petitioner was not entitled to hearing while restoring his original tariff.

12. For the reasons stated above, this petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./S‑3/L Petition dismissed.