1. ' Shafique Ahmad son of Rehmat Ullah, a consumer of electricity supply by respondent No,1, through this Constitutional petition, calls in question the actions of respondent No,3, functionary of respondent No,1. In-- (i)disconnecting the electric supply and removing the meter installed at the tubewell of the petitioner; (ii)lodging a false F.I.R. No,148 of 2002 under section 39-A, Electricity Act with the allegation that meter was tampered; and
(iii) issuance of bill through respondent ' No,5 for a sum 'of Rs,1,27,877 for 51,993 units.
2. 2.It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No,3, had, without notice to the petitioner, disconnected his premises and had removed the electric meter with mala fide intention. Previously also on the same allegation the meter was removed and F.I.R. Was also got registered against the petitioner in which he was challaned and after facing trial was eventually acquitted. That annoyed by his acquittal the respondents, had, also previously issued an incorrect and excessive bill whereupon the petitioner was constrained to file a complaint against them before the Electric Inspector, Government of the Punjab, Multan Region, Multan, which was contested by the respondents and was eventually accepted on 3-8-2002. It was held in the said order that detection bill raised by respondents was not justified and they were directed to withdraw/waive off late payment, surcharges and to overhaul the account of the petitioner in the light of the observation made in the order.
3. It was further submitted that before the announcement of the said order by the Electric Inspector, respondent No,3, without any notice, severed the connection and removed the meter on 2-8-2002 and on the day when the said order was announced respondent had lodged another false F.I.R.
3. Against the petitioner leveling the same allegation against him on which he had been acquitted earlier by the WAPDA Magistrate. It was further contended that again another false detection bill calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs,1,27,877 has been issued, on the same grounds on which the previous detection bill was issued which was eventually found by the Electric Inspector as unjustified.
4. 4.Malik Haider Jamal, Advocate counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5 had opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner was served with a notice as on checking his premises the meter was found tampered with. He produced before me photo copy of notice which was according to him served upon the petitioner. It was further argued by him that the meter was removed after complying with the provisions of section 26-A of the Electricity Act and that F.I.R. Was lodged against the petitioner as he was found stealing electricity by tampering the meter.
5. 5.Arguments heard; writ petition, its annexures, attested copy of the order of Electric Inspector, dated 3-8-2002 and photo copy of notice issued on 3-8-2002 by respondent No,3, perused.
6. 6.Contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner which have been stated hereinbefore regarding allegations against the respondents, are mentioned in the writ petition which is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents did not deny that on the same allegation a criminal case was also previously registered against the petitioner which was contested by the respondents and the petitioner was ultimately acquitted in the said case.
7. Filing of complaint against the respondents, regarding a previous detection bill issued by the respondents and verdict given thereon by the Electric Inspector is also not denied by him. Although the learned counsel for the respondents asserted that meter was removed after service of notice in accordance with law but he did not produce anything in black and white to show as to on which date the meter was removed hence in the absence of any rebuttal on that point, contention of the petitioner that meter was removed on 2-8-2002 appears to be correct.
8. 7.A perusal of photo copy of notice produced by the respondents' counsel shows that at was issued on 3-8-2002. It is mentioned therein that premises of the petitioner were checked on 2-8-2002 and it was found that meter was tampered with. In this notice the petitioner was required to explain within seven days of the receipt of notice as to why detection/assessment bill as per provisions of section 26-A of Electricity Act should not be charged and he was also requested to associate with the Detection Committee with all relevant record in connection with the preparation of detection bill.
9. 8.Photo copy of this notice simply shows that it was issued on 3-8-2002. Notice was produced in support of the assertion that it was also served on the petitioner, however, relevant record showing service of the petitioner which in the ordinary course, should be with the respondents was not produced. On top of the photo copy of the notice the word "Registered" is written. No receipt issued by the post office was produced to show that it was also delivered in the post office for transmission to the petitioner.
10. 9.Last but not the least in the said notice, the petitioner was not called upon to show cause as to why his premises should not be disconnected and the meter should not be removed. He was simply asked to explain as to why detection, assessment bill should not be charged from him.
10. It was, therefore, amply clear that the premises was disconnected and meter was removed on 2-8-2002 before the issuance of notice and secondly the notice did not relate to disconnection or removal of meter.
11. 11.Now coming to the detection bill Annexure-J, date of its issue is 16-8-2002. It has already been observed hereinbefore that service of notice was not proved, according to which he was directed to show cause Against the issuance of detection bill and was also requested to associate with the Detection Committee with all the relevant record in connection with preparation of the detection bill.
12. 12The detection bill was, therefore, obviously prepared without service of notice on the petitioner and without his association in the Detection Committee. Nothing was produced to show that the petitioner had associated with the Detection Committee.
13. 13.It is also not disclosed in the detection bill as to on what basis it was prepared and to which period it relates.
14. The premises were disconnected and meter was removed on 2-8-2002 when the complaint of the petitioner against the respondents was pending before the Electric Inspector. Attested copy of the decision of the Electric Inspector on that complaint shows that no objection was raised by the respondents before the Electric Inspector that meter of the petitioner was tampered with. The said complaint was decided on 3-8-2002 wherein it is held that detection bill issued by the respondents was not justified.
14. 15.After the said decision, on the same day, another F.I.R. Was lodged by. Respondent No,3, with the same allegation. From the facts and circumstances it, therefore, appears that the action of respondents Nos.3 and 5 respectively in disconnecting the premises removing the meter, lodging the F.I.R. And issuing the detection bill are without notice to the petitioner, against the mandatory provisions of law, without justification and without lawful authority.
15. 16.Consequently the writ petition is accepted and F.L.R. No, 148, dated 3-8-2002 registered at Police Station Chhab Kalan, District Khanewal under section 39-A of the Electricity Act, against the petitioner is hereby quashed.
16. 1.7. Respondents are directed to reconnect the petitioner's premises and to re-install the meter forthwith.
18. The case shall be deemed to be pending at the stage of notice. Dated 3-8-2002 which shall be served on the petitioner in accordance with law. Where after the respondents shall have to pass fresh order determining the liability after giving full opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner.