MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--- This R.A seeks review of the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court whereby I.C.A. No. 215/1998 was disposed of and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 9.9.1998 referring the matter in dispute to the Electric Inspector, was maintained.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent namely Khalid Pervaiz filed a W.P. No. 4363/1998 seeking declaration that the action of the applicant WAPDA (Water & Power Development Authority) of checking the electricity installations, disconnecting the electricity connection and charging him with the detection bill to the tune of Rs. 2, 97,923/- was illegal, void, without lawful authority, against the statutory provisions and the dictum laid down by the Superior Courts, being based on mala fide, ulterior motive with a further direction to restore the electricity connection and to get the meter and other equipments checked by the C.L.R.
Electric Inspector and to withdraw the detection bill and also to act strictly in accordance with law.
In the said writ petition the WAPDA/applicant filed written statement through its counsel namely Mr. Muhammad Amir Bhatti, Advocate on 15.6.1998 and took the plea that respondent was found by the Checking Team of the WAPDA that KWH & MDI meter was prevented to pilfer the energy by artificial means by using specially made instrument, body of the transformer was short-circuited with blue phase internally and by making switch the meter was stopped to register the energy accurately and on the basis of the report of the said Checking Team an FIR No. 112/97 was got registered against Khalid Pervaiz-respondent and a detection bill was also prepared amounting to Rs.
2,97,923/- and was delivered to the writ petitioner. Ultimately, the writ petition was decided by the learned Single Judge, in Chamber, of this Court vide judgment dated 9.9,1998 in the following terms:--- "It is further declared that the action of respondents disconnecting the electricity of the petitioner is also illegal and without lawful authority. The respondent shall restore the electricity of the petitioner forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the Electric Inspector who shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. In case the verdict of the Electric Inspector comes in fayour of the petitioner the amount of Rs. 71,000/- deposited by the petitioner under orders of this Court shall be refunded to the petitioner and in case the decision of the Electric inspector is adverse to the petitioner the WAPDA shall have the right to adjust that amount to the extent of adverse findings. Parties shall appear before the Electric Inspector on 9.10.1998. However, the partiess shall bear their own costs."
The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the applicant WAPDA through I.C.A. No. 215/1998 which was heard by a learned Division Bench of this Court and was disposed of on 15.10.2001 in the following terms:--- "In the afore-referred circumstances we do not find the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber insofar as it remanded the case to the Electric Inspector as exceptional. However, with regard to the observations made by the .Learned Single Judge in Chamber qua the vires of the act of the appellant in disconnecting the electricity supply, we direct that the Electric Inspector while deciding the matter shall consider whatever evidence parties wish to adduce and decide it strictly on merit uninfluenced by the order of the learned Single Judge in Chamber. He shall do so within 3 months of the filing of the application made by respondent. Respondent may apply to the Electric Inspector within 15 days failing which the law shall take its own course. Needless to observe the amount deposited by respondent shall be subject to the order to be passed by the Electric Inspector. Disposed of."
The above-mentioned judgment of the learned Division Bench is sought to be reviewed through this Review Application.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Single Judge as well as the learned I.C.A. Bench were not right in referring the matter to the Electric Inspector as the theft alleged against the respondent did not involve meter equipment and according to the applicant the tampering was done with the main transformer and KWH & MDI meter was prevented to register accurate energy by using specially made instrument, and that the Electric Inspector has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and only the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has the power to look into it, in case the suit was filed by the respondent. In this respect reliance has been placed on the case "WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others versus Mian Muhammad Riaz and another" (P.L.D 1995 Lahore 56)
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this Review Application on the ground of its being barred by time and has also argued that the points raised in this petition already stand decided and turned down by the learned Single Judge as well as by the learned I.C.A. Bench and that this Review Application has been filed with the object of rehearing the matter which is neither reasonable nor permissible under the law, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered the above arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge as well as the I.C.A.
6. We have noticed that the learned Single Judge despite taking notice of all the facts in para- 6 of the judgment still held that the matter was to be referred to the Electric Inspector. Again same arguments were repeated before the learned I.C.A. Bench but the learned I:C.A. Bench was also of the view that Electric Inspector had been given vast powers to look into the issue which was subject-matter of the said I.C.A. And while holding so the learned I.C.A. Bench was also not ignorant of the law declared by a Full Bench of this Court in "WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others versus Mian Muhammad Riaz and another" (P.L.D 1995 Lahore 56).
7. It is an established principle of law that where a conscious and deliberate decision has been made with regard to the nature of the orders, which it is empowered to pass under a provision of law only, the exercise of review jurisdiction cannot be invoked by means of rehearing of the matter and that a decision even though it is erroneous perse would not be a ground to justify its review can only lie on the ground of an error which is apparent on the face of the record and must be manifestly so clear that no Court could permit such an error to remain on the record. It may be an error of fact or of law, but it must be an error which is self-evident and floating on the surface and does not require any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination and no review lies on the grounds which were already advanced at the hearing of the appeal or petition and were attended to by the Court. Reliance in this respect can be safely placed on the case "Mian Rafiq Saigol and another versus Bank of Credit & Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. And another" (PLD 1997 S.0 865),
8. For what has been discussed above, we are satisfied that no case for review either of judgment of learned Single Judge or that of the learned I.C.A. Bench is made out. This Review Application is accordingly dismissed.
Review .