SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J. --- In June, 1996, electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected. He applied for reconnection and was asked to deposit a sum of Rs, 103,603/- which he did. Reconnection fee of Rs, 1500/-was further demanded from him, which was also paid.
Despite these payments, reconnection policy is said to have undergone a change, according to which the petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs, 191,125/-. On deposit of that the reconnection was made. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, ever since after reconnection no default has been made by the petitioner.
2. The only dispute now is the claim of the petitioner for refund of Rs, 103,603/- which amount was deposited for reconnection purposes in the year 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that despite applications made, the respondents have not refunded the said amount who had, thus, to approach this Court for appropriate direction.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, what stands out from the record and is not in dispute is the payment of Rs, 103,603/- and another sum of Rs, 191,125/-. Both deposits were made by the petitioner for one and the same purpose i.e. reconnection. It is also admitted that electricity connection was reconnected on deposit of Rs. 191,125/- i.e. over and above the previously deposited amount of Rs. 103,603/-. It is not understandable as to how the respondents are justified to, retain the previously deposited amount when for reconnection purpose under a later policy a sum of Rs.
191,125/- was charged from the petitioner. Indeed in a democratic set up it does not behaved the public authorities/functionaries to decline the return of the money erroneously or recovered from a citizen to whom it belongs, I am tempted here to borrow some observations appearing in Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India and others (AIR 1975 SC 2279) that "To return what has been taken wrongly is as much a duty and grace of government as to levy relentlessly and fully what is due. Default in either, not altogether unfamiliar, brings down the confidence of the community in the Administration. That a party should have been put to two expensive and elongated litigations to recover a relatively small sum `is regrettable." If it is found that the State/authority has failed to make return/ refund to the citizen to whom he was lawfully entitled, even the question of limitation or of adequacy of forum will not arise. One of the Principles of Policy, the State is obliged to. observe is, clause (d) of Article s37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which is that "the State shall ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice".
The double exaction of the money for one and the same purpose i.e. reconnection, is not justifiable on any principle. The petitioner is entitled to the refund of the same.
In view of the above, the respondents are directed to make refund or adjust the amount of Rs.
103,603/- in future bills.