Detection bill

2017 MLD 757 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.42 & 54Electricity Act (IX of 1910), S.26(6)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & O.VII, R.1Suit for declaration and injunctionDetection billCivil Court, jurisdiction ofValue of plaint, non fixation of

Authorities were aggrieved of judgments and decrees passed concurrently by two Courts below in favour of plaintiff/consumer

Plea raised by authorities was that jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in such matters

Validity

Meter was checked unilaterally in absence of plaintiff/consumer and none of the parties moved any application or ever asked Electrical Inspector to resolve dispute between them, therefore, provisions of S.26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910, were not applicable

Primary jurisdiction of Civil Court was dealt with under S.9, C.P.C. and the Court had jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of their cognizance either expressly or impliedly barred

Authorities could not point out any bar contained in any law except S.26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910

Where jurisdiction was not specifically barred, the Court had the jurisdiction to entertain suit as was obvious from decrees of courts below

Plaintiff itself revealed that it was a case for an amount of Rs.558,101/- which was adjudged against plaintiff, therefore, value for purposes of jurisdiction or Court fee was the same as mentioned in judgments and decrees of two courts below and in plaint itself

Provisions of O.VII, R.1, C.P.C., were procedural in nature and not mandatory, so if any party was not prejudiced by any of the omission mentioned in O.VII, R.1, C.P.C. the case could not be decided on mere technicality

Trial Court adjudged case against the authorities after thorough perusal of record, evidence and going through pros and cons of law and facts available on the subject

Authorities had also availed right of appeal but question raised before High Court as not agitated at the time of filing appeal

Authorities, in circumstances, could not take any benefit of procedural technicalities

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PLD 769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 26(6) & 26-ADetection billElectric Inspector, decision of

Electricity Distribution Company, was aggrieved of decisions made by Electric Inspector and Provincial Advisory Board against detection bill demanded from the consumer

Validity

Provision of S.26-A of Electricity Act, 1910, only spoke of charging/imposing of amount by licensee upon consumer, regarding dishonest abstraction and consumption of electricity; which might not be through tampering in metering equipment, in any case amount payable on account of audit objection, could be originating from dishonest abstraction did not, in any manner fall within the purview of Electric Inspector

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction set aside the orders/decisions by Electric Inspector and Provincial Advisory Board

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2016 CLCN 39 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 24, 26-A & 54-CDetection billDeterminationCivil Court/Electric InspectorJurisdiction

Plaintiff assailed detection bill issued by Electric Company but Trial Court dismissed the suit on the plea of lack of jurisdiction

Lower Appellate Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and suit filed by plaintiff was decreed in his favour

Validity

In case of theft of electricity or illegal abstraction of energy, Electric Inspector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute and jurisdiction was exclusively with Civil Court, which could resolve the controversy after proper appreciation of evidence produced by parties

Detention bill issued to plaintiff was made without any authority, in contravention of procedure and in violation of natural justice, therefore, the same was liable to be annulled

Solitary witness produced by defendant company admitted the stance of plaintiff in his cross-examination in unequivocal manner

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 CLC 1417 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25, 27, 30 & 31Electricity Act (IX of 1910), S.39-AComplaint, filing ofDetection billJurisdiction of Consumer CourtScopeIllegal orderLimitation

Consumer Court could issue direction if products complained against suffered from any of the defects specified in the claim or all the allegations contained in the same with regard to service provided were true

Complaint by the complainant was not with regard to any defective product or faulty services rather same was with regard to correction of detection bill which would fall within the jurisdiction of civil court

Criminal case had also been got registered against the complainant under S.39-A of Electricity Act, 1910

Matter of issuance of detection bill with regard to charge of theft of energy by the consumer through metering equipments or relating to reading would fall within the jurisdiction of Electric Inspector but not civil court

Consumer Court had to first identify a consumer availing service and if the said service was found defective, only then court could fix damages and award the same

Said court could not issue a direction for reduction in the detection bill issued by WAPDA which was the exclusive domain of civil court

Present complaint was incompetent and Consumer Court had wrongly assumed the jurisdiction in the matter as complainant had already invoked the jurisdiction of civil court

Impugned order had been passed without jurisdiction which was illegal and no limitation would run against such order

Impugned order passed by the Consumer Court was set aside and complaint filed was dismissed

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

2015 YLR 1598 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 26(6)Theft of electricityDetection billCivil court, jurisdiction ofScopeObjection raised with regard to question of lawEffect

Contention of WAPDA (defendant) was that when detection bill was issued due to theft of electricity against a consumer with regard to metering equipment then civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Detection bill was issued on the charge of slowness of meter

Jurisdiction of civil court was barred with regard to allegation of theft of electricity against the consumer due to metering equipment

Both the courts below had omitted to consider the said aspect of the case while passing the impugned judgments and decrees

Question of jurisdiction being a question of law could be raised by any party at any stage of proceedings even court itself was required to examine whether it had jurisdiction to proceed or not

Party would not be debarred from raising objection at later stage of proceedings even before higher forum merely that it had not raised any objection out of ignorance or for want of proper advise

Neither silence of party nor even waiver would confer the jurisdiction on a court not vested in law

Question of jurisdiction would go to the roots of case and same would render the entire proceedings coram non judice thereby vitiating the entire proceedings and making the judgment illegal and void

Question of jurisdiction should be firstly decided by the court

Suit was remanded to the Trial Court without touching upon merits of the case

Impugned judgments and decrees were set aside

Trial Court was directed to decide the matter afresh considering the objection of jurisdiction

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

2015 MLD 1307 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 24(2) & 26(6)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional PetitionDetection BillPowers of Electric InspectorScope

Section 26 (6) of Electricity Act, 1910, mandates that Electric Inspector is to decide the matter relating to detection bill within the period of ninety days and if the same is not done within the stipulated period, the matter will be referred to Provincial Government for decision

Electric Inspector, in such eventuality would become functus officio

Where the Electric Inspector had failed to decide the matter within stipulated period, order of Electric Inspector and that of Advisory Board were set aside by High Court being illegal, void ab initio and coram non judice and matter was referred to Provincial Government to decide the same in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was allowed.

2015 MLD 299 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 26(6)Electric Inspector, powers ofDefect in metering equipmentSlowness of electricity meterDetection billDetection bill sent to consumer due to defect in metering equipment could be challenged before the Electric Inspector

However, where the consumer completely by-passed the metering equipment and used a device to supply energy by dishonest extraction of electricity, and question relating to correctness of the metering equipment was not involved, the charge made to consumer under S. 26A of Electricity Act, 1910, was not referable to the Electric Inspector in terms of S. 26(6) or any other provision of the Electricity Act, 1910.

2014 PLD 218 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Temporary injunctionScopeDisconnection of gas meterDetection billTrial Court allowed application of the plaintiff for grant of temporary relief

Appellant Gas Company was directed to restore the gas supply of plaintiff and issue regular monthly bill without surcharge

Validity

Plaintiff had failed to show any irreparable loss in case of refusal of injunction rather there seemed strong apprehension of damage/injury to the defendants in case of non-deposit of the outstanding amount, therefore balance of convenience tilted in favour of the defendant

Interim relief of temporary injunction could not be granted which amount to grant of final relief, prayed in the suit.