Respondent No,1 was issued a detection hill in the sum of Rs,1,43,094 on account of slowness of meter on 26-2-1989. This was challenged by respondent No,1 before Electric Inspector, respondent No,2. Petitioners contested and after inquiry and evidence etc., on 19-5-1990, the Electric Inspector allowed the application of respondent No,1 and directed that the consumer be charged on basis of past consumption. Petitioner challenged this decision, before the Advisory Board, respondent No,3.
The Advisory Board allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Electric Inspector for fresh decision after permitting the petitioner to produce further evidence. On remand, vide order 3-7- 1993, the Electric Inspector again accepted the application of the consumer. He forwarded copy of the order to the Advisory Board, respondent No,3. On 6-10-1994, the matter was taken up by Advisory Board. No one appeared for the petitioners. The Advisory Board upheld the objection of the consumer that as the petitioners had not filed fresh appeal against the decision rendered by Electric Inspector after remand, the Advisory Board cannot examine the correctness of the fresh order of Electric Inspector, dated 3-7-1993. The Board further held that "The case is therefore, closed as there is no matter pending before the Advisory Board".
2. In this Constitutional petition, the above view of the Advisory Board is challenged on the basis of the language used in section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. It is a lengthy subsection and the relevant part reads:-- Where the Electric Inspector fails to decide the matter of differences or dispute within the said period or where either the licensee or the consumer decline to accept the decision of the Electric Inspector, the matter shall be referred to the Provincial Government whose decision shall be final: Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as after deciding the matter afresh, the Electric Inspector had sent a copy of his decision to the Advisory. Board, it shall be deemed that the petitioners did not accept the correctness of the order of the Electric Inspector. The Advisory Board, therefore, should have proceeded to decide the matter, on merits irrespective of the fact that the petitioners as such had not filed any appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 has contested the assertion by urging that it is only at the behest of the aggrieved party that the Advisory Board can examine the correctness/legality of the order of Electric Inspector. It is asserted that merely because the Electric Inspector has sent a copy to the Advisory Board, does not mean that an appeal is pending before the Advisory Board which ought to be decided on merits.
3. It is clear that if either a licensee or a consumer is not satisfied and, therefore, does not accept the decision of Electric Inspector, it can refer the matter to Provincial Government. The language used does not say that either the consumer or the licensee can file an appeal. However, the words "shall be referred to the Provincial Government" will have to be construed as conferring a right of reference, in other words, a right of appeal in the dissatisfied party. Petitioners themselves earlier filed an appeal and were successful in getting rid of the order of Electric Inspector when the case was remanded for fresh decision. If the petitioners had not accepted the fresh order of Electric Inspector, they could have and ought to have shown their non-acceptance by filing a reference/appeal before the Advisory Board. The intention of the law maker does not seem to be that in the absence of any reference/appeal by a dissatisfied party, the Advisory Board itself should proceed to examine the correctness and the legality of the order of Electric Inspector. This course would amount to giving a power of revision to the Advisory Board which power has not been conferred by the Statute upon the Advisory Board. I may add that nothing much turns on the expression employed, which is "shall be referred to the Provincial Government". Reference here can only mean, on the petition/motion/appeal of the party who has not accepted the decision of Electric Inspector. Any other course is likely to lead to uncertainty and unavoidable complications.
4. For what has been stated above, I find no force in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.