' Mian Shaukat Hayat plaintiff/respondent herein had instituted a suit for declaration challenging the electricity bill of Rs,1,67,752 for the month of October, 1996 of the electricity connection No,3115- 004462 for his Ice Factory alongwith the amount of Rs,49,340 averring in the plaint that there is no complaint against the plaintiff's account number with regard to the electricity meter and the defendants/petitioners with mala fide intention had issued the said disputed electricity bill to the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendants/petitioners herein who filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint with their specific stand that the meter was checked by a team of WAPDA and found slow and on the basis of report, detection bill was issued to the plaintiff/respondent herein. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court led to frame the following issues:--
(1) Whether bill for the month of October, 1996 to the extent of Rs,49,340 is illegal, contrary to the meter reading? OPP
(2) Whether meter of the plaintiff was found slow on checking by WAPDA team? OPD
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? OPP
(4) Whether suit is false and frivolous and defendants are entitled to get special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(5) Relief.
2. After recording and appreciating the evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 1-2-2000 decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioners preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, who vide the impugned judgment and decree, dated 11-1-2001 dismissed the same affirmed the findings of the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contending that on checking of meter of the Ice Factory of the plaintiff/respondent, the same was found running slow and in the month of October, 1994, a detection bill was issued to him for the recovery of the consumption amount. Further contended that the plaintiff/respondent had not challenged the act of the petitioner before the Electric Inspector under section 26 of the WAPDA Electricity Act.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The respondent has been imposed penalty for his slow running of meter. The WAPDA Authorities are empowered under the law to enter the premises to which energy is supplied by the licensee but section 20 of the Electricity Act, 1910 emerges that a licensee or any person duly authorized by the licensee may, at any reasonable time and on informing the occupier of his intention, enter the premises subject to the other proviso of the section. The petitioners have not proved on record as to when the meter was checked and at the time of checking of the meter, any notice was issued to the consumer/respondent as is the requirement of section 20 of the Electricity Act.
6. The petitioners had issued a detection bill to the respondent and were demanding for the payment of Rs,1,67,752 for the month of October, 1994 on the allegation of tampering the electricity meter. Learned counsel for the petitioners forcefully stressed that the plaintiff/respondent has not approached the Electric Inspector and without availing of the alternate remedy, has knocked the general jurisdiction of the Civil Court and this Court lacks the jurisdiction. From the perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioners, it transpired that such objection has not been raised by the petitioners and at this late stage, such objection cannot be raised. Further the petitioners themselves have not complied with the provision of section 24 of the Electricity Act, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-- "Where any consumer neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, assessed against him by a licensee in respect of supply of energy to his premises, the licensee may after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such consumer and without prejudice to his right recover such charge or other sum by suit or otherwise, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied to such premises or to any other premises, other than domestic premises. Running distinctly in the name of such consumer, and may, discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply and the minimum charges on account of continued reservation of supply during the period of such discontinuance, are paid, but not longer."
7. The petitioners have not been able to establish that before checking the meter or issuance of electricity disputed bill, any notice was issued to the consumer/plaintiff. There is no proof on the record that any of the officer of the WAPDA or WAPDA team has checked the meter by I c associating the plaintiff. The determination of the period for charging of slowness of the meter is arbitrary. The issuance of notice before charging ID the detecting bill is mandatory requirement of law. The meter was not sent to the Electric Inspector to find out defect and penalized the respondent without getting the meter determined as tampered. WAPDA E could not ignore or violate law and become judges in their own cause to deprive consumer of his rights. In this context reliance can be placed to the case of Mian Muhammad Munir v. WAPDA and others 1983 CLC 211.
The consumer-plaintiff respondent had not received any complaint or intimation from licensee about the slowness or tampering of his meter.
8. The petitioners have not pointed any defect in the meter by issuing a notice under the law. Such- like matter has been dealt with by this Court in case of Dr. Muhammad Rafiq Chaudhry v. WAPDA and others 1983 CLC 2397, wherein, it has been observed that the Authority by disconnecting electric supply without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 24 of Electricity Act, 1910, having unnecessarily dragged the consumer into litigation, it was clear encroachment upon the rights of the consumer which was without any basis and jurisdiction. Reliance can further be placed to the case of Shafiq Ahmad v. MEPCO WAPDA and others 2003 CLC 598.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
10. The Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees took a count of every bit of evidence placed before them and j were not shown to have been overlooked any part of the record from their judicious consideration. Findings of the lower Courts on question of fact and law based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary j evidence led in the suit were not susceptible to review to be upset or substituted in provisional jurisdiction and findings recorded by the Courts K below on question of fact could not be upset merely on the ground that another view of evidence was possible if re-appraised. The findings of the Courts below based on material on record would not be amendable to interfere with in revisional jurisdiction. Reliance can be made to the cases of Guldar Khan v. Isa Khan 1993 SCM R 2099, Nazir Ahmad v. Boota 1989 SCM R 450, Riaz v.
Muhammad Saleem 1989 SCM R 1491 and Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition having no force I m is dismissed in limine.