' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner sent a bill in- question to respondent No,1. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No,1458 of 1999, which was disposed by this Court. Subsequently, the respondent filed IntraCourt Appeal No,102 of 1999, which was also disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court with the direction to the Chief Engineer of LESCO to pass appropriate order after providing proper hearing to the petitioner after verifying the relevant record. The Chief Engineer of LESCO decided the case against respondent No,1. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved filed a complaint before the Electric Inspector, who accepted the same vide order dated 11-7-2001 with the condition to pay initial detection correct bill amounting to Rs,1,47,750, whereas final detection bill of Rs,3,93,301 was declared void.
The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Advisory Board, who dismissed the'same vide order dated 23-4-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that both the Tribunals below have decided the case against the petitioner without applying their independent mind and without proper appreciation of evidence on record. He further submits that the Inspector has decided the case against the petitioner in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that the Advisory Board has countersigned the order of the Inspector.
3. The learned law officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The Inspector has afforded several opportunities to the petitioner to file written reply of the application filed by respondent No,1, but the petitioner did not bother to submit written reply of the application for the reasons best known to the petitioner, therefore, the Inspector was constrained to strike off the right of the petitioner to file reply of the application, yide his order dated 4-9-2000. The Inspector after granting proper hearing to both the parties and after proper appreciation of evidence, accepted the application of respondent No,1 vide order dated 11-7-2001. Thereafter, order of the Inspector was upheld by three members of the Advisory Board after proper appreciation of evidence on record vide impugned order dated 23-4-2003. It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its findings in place of findings of Tribunals below as per law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Board of Intermediate Education, Lahore, v. M. Mussadaq Naseem Sindhu PLD 1973 Lahore 600 and Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1964 SC 260.
' It is settled principle of law that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable against the concurrent findings of the Tribunals below as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Khuda Bakhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and another 1974 SCM R 279; Muhammad Sharif and others v.
Muhammad Afzal Sohail and others PLD 1981 SC 246 and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and others PLD 1981 SC 522.
' It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not impleaded the Electric Inspector, Government of Punjab as respondent, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rameezul-Haq's case PLD 1992 SC 221. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was granted several opportunities by the aforesaid Electric Inspector to file reply of the petition of respondent No,1 but the petitioner failed to file the same, therefore, contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the order of the Electric Inspector is hit by the principle of natural justice, has no force. It is also settled principle of law that nobody is allowed' to get benefit of his own misdeed. It is also settled principle of law that the Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in a character, he who seeks equity, must come to the Court with clean hands.
6. Keeping in view of the aforesaid circumstances and the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner, as per principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 and Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCMR 1461. It is admitted fact that the case was decided against the petitioner on account of inaction of the official/officer of the petitioner, therefore, keeping in view of this aspect of the present case, let a copy of writ petition be sent to the Chairman, WAPDA, who is directed to constitute a high-powered committee to probe into the matter, who is responsible officer/official, who did not file reply of application of respondent No,1 within prescribed period and did not pursue the case diligently. In case, the- committee finds any officer/official who did not pursue the matter before the Electric Inspector diligently, then he is directed to proceed against the delinquent officer/official under (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules. He is also directed to complete this process within 3 months after receiving the order of this Court. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period. Office is also directed to provide one copy of this order to Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate- General, who is directed to send the same to the Chairman WAPDA for necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.