SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This constitutional petition impugns the demand of further security raised by respondents against the petitioner.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that petitioner a limited company is a consumer of respondent and originally its shares were owned by the Government of the Punjab. In the course of process of privatization, the entire share-holding was transferred, whereafter, the respondents raised the demand for additional security.
3. Pursuant to this Court's order, report and parawise comments have been filed. Relying on sub para (a) of second proviso of. Clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, it is contended on behalf of respondents that the act of privatization constitutes change of owner or occupier of the premises wherein the electricity connection has been installed. Hence, the petitioner is liable to deposit further security in accordance with the policy of the respondents.
4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner company was and continues to be owner and occupier of the premises in question, and change of shareholders does not constitute a change in the ownership of the premises.
5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mass Products (Ind) Ltd. 1998 PTD 1096; Shaikh Muhammad Anwar v. Sh. Muhammad Iqbal and another 1984 CLC 103; Haji Khuda Bakhsh Nizamani v. Election Tribunal and others 2003 MLD 607; Muhammad Irfan Azad v. Mst. Sultan Begum and 8 others PLD 1971 Karachi 91 and Haider International Finance Ltd. v. The State Bank 1986 CLC 2197.
6. There is no escape from the fact that the petitioner company is the consumer and continues to be so. Transfer of shares and change in the shareholders does not constitute the change of ownership or occupation of the premises contemplated by law. It is the elementary principle of Company Law that a limited company is a juristic person with a legal entity separate from its share-holder and any change in the share-holding of a company does not mean change in the title of the assets of the company or premises occupied thereby as has been held in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. In the light of above mentioned facts, I accept this petition. Holding the impugned demand of the respondents as illegal and destitute of any lawful authority leaving the parties to bear their own costs.