' ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.---This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 3693 of 2005 and 1434 of 2004.
2. Through these Writ Petitions the orders of the Electric Inspector are under review on grounds of jurisdiction. These orders relate to detection bills whereby he ordered that the detection bills will be charged on the basis of the 30% of load factor and 40% in the other case.
3. Whether in a detection bill, the Electric Inspector can sit in adjudication, is the main concern. In this connection, the judgment given by the apex Court in Civil Petition No,2971-L of 2004 is important and its relevant excerpt is reproduced below:-- "Thus, as the law declared stands today, in cases of theft of electricity or illegal abstraction of energy, the Electric Inspector has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute and it is only the Court of plenary jurisdiction who could resolve such a controversy."
4. In this judgment, reference is also made to the case of WAPDA and others v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another PLD 1995 Lah. 56 and to the case of Colony Textile Mills Multan v. Chief Executive, Multan Electricity Power Company Ltd. And 2 others 2004 SCMR 1679. The relevant portions of the said judgments relied upon by the Hon'ble apex Court are given in the judgment itself.
5. Respectfully agreeing to the interpretation of the Electricity Act as given by the apex Court, this Court is of the view that the Electric Inspector has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter pertaining to a detection bill and, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction or any opinion expressed thereon was an illegal act.
6. Disposed of.