SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J. -After having agitated the matter time and again before this Court, the dispute about the correctness/legality or otherwise of the detection bill eventually reached the Electric Inspector who passed order dated 14.11.2002. Against that order an appeal was filed before , the Advisory Board Punjab by the contesting respondents, (shortly referred to as WAPDA), which appeal was heard on 6,12.2003. In order to remove obscurity about the date of order passed by the Advisory Board, the proceedings order-sheet has been produced, It is evident from the perusal thereof that order of the Electric Inspector, Gujranwala dated 14.11,2002 was set aside by the Board on 6.12.2003 for the reason that he had failed to pass the order within 90 days. By doing so it was observed by the Advisory Board that "The main appeal shall be treated as a reference to the Government which shall accordingly be heard by the Advisory Committee constituted by Punjab Govemment vide Notification No. S.O. (Power) l&P 1-1/2002, dated 23.9.2002. " The proceedings were then conducted by the Committee comprising two members and a Chairman, who recorded its - recommendations that "the Committee recommends that the respondent have rightly charged a detection bill of Rs. 57,80,075/- for the period from 1/93 to 6/94 and the same is payable by the petitioner1'. Although these recommendations do not bear any date yet from the proceedings, file it appears that after hearing the arguments on 24.12.2004 recommendations were prepared on 11.3.2005 and were placed for consideration before the Government. The perusal of the file shows that S.O. (Power) forwarded the recommendations of the Committee to D.S. (Power) for perusal/approval by the Secretary. The file then moved to DS (L) who forwarded it to AS (T). Noting in para, 53 received the approval from Secretary, Irrigation & Power which reads like this: "Ref up 48-49/above and the recommendations of DS (L) at up 52/above, the findings/recommendations of the Special Committee at flag- 'A'- are placed below for kind perusal/approval'. It was "approved' by the Secretary on 8.4.2005, as is evident from paragraph 54 of the proceedings file.
Thereafter on 18.4.2005 it was directed that "Findings/recommendations of the Special Committee has been approved by the Secretary, l&P at para-54/ante. Please inform the parties concerned n The present petition seeks to assail the disposition of the matter in the manner it has been done and demand notice dated 10.5.2005 issued as a consequence thereof.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. In view of the order that I propose to pass after consideration of the matter, I will refrain from dilating upon the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties or making any observation thereabout. Suffice it to observe that the Committee which ultimately heard the matter and recorded its findings/recommendation had been constituted pursuant to the statutory provisions i.e. S. 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, which Committee was obliged to "submit his report/recommendations to Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department for final decision." The notification constituting the Committee issued by the Government of Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department on 23.9.2003 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Committee, which in terms of para-7 of the Notification had to hear the parties and forward its recommendations to the Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department for "final decision". As is evident from the. Proceedings mentioned above, the recommendations had been submitted by the Committee to the Secretary', Irrigation & Power Department who simply recorded his approval on the order-sheet. No order evincing his 'final decision' is available. This was not consistent with the law and was not even in accord with the Notification itself. The power of "decision" finally rested with the Secretary, Irrigation & Power. The expression "decision", in its ordinary understanding and parlance means an act of deciding or setting a dispute or question by giving a judgment; the act of making up ones mind a judgment or conclusion reached or given. Reference in ttys context may be made to Muhammad Ramzan v. Trustees of Port of Karachi (1990 CLC 1086). It implies the due application of mind by the authority concerned to the Secretary, Irrigation & Power was not enough to meet the requirement of law in particular when the notification itself empowered him to render a 'final decision'. In Ghulam Mohi-ud-din v. Chief-Settlement Commissioner (Pakistan), Lahore and others (PLD 1964 SC 829) it was observed that "By merely countersigning on the note of the Settlement Commissioner (Policy); we are clearly of the view, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with law and that here was no proper disposal of the revision petitioners filed before him." In Fazal Dad and 2 others v. Members, Board of Revenue {Colonies) West Pakistan and another (PLD 1977 Lahore 264) also such a noting approved by the Collector was not approved and it was observed that "Collector in the instant case also did not independently examine the case and there was no proper disposal of the case on this point impugned orders, the same shall have to be declared as to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect against the petitioners and the case shall have to be remanded to the leamed collector for fresh decision in accordance with law." Since respondent No. 1 before taking 'final decision' as contemplated by Notification dated 23.9.2002 had neither heard the petitioner nor recorded its own decision,. Mere countersigning of the recommendations of the Committee was not contemplated by law.
4. Moreover the recommendations of the Committee cannot be equated with not given status of the 'final decision' by the Secretary, Irrigation & Power Government of Punjab (respondent No. 1).
The approval thus accorded by respondent No. 1 on the proceedings file is of no legal significance and effect. Result there of is that for final decision respondent No. 1 will have to Consider the matter afresh by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties may be at liberty to raise such pleas/points before respondent No. 1 as may be available to them under law.
In view of the above demand dated 10.5.2005 made from the petitioner has no valid basis which is declared as of no legal effect. The petition is accepted to this extent with no order as to costs.