' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment, dated 16- 7-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pasroor whereby appeal filed by the respondents against dismissal of their suit by the learned trial Court on 15-9-2000, was allowed and their suit for declaration was decreed in their favour as prayed for.
2. The facts in brief are that predecessor in interest of respondents namely Muhammad Hussain was the consumer under the petitioner holding electricity A/c.No,2254086910. Originally the said connection was on flat rate, afterwards on an application moved by said Muhammad Hussain, it was converted into one under "open rate base" through letter No,633-34-AA-119 issued on 11-1-1995.
However, subsequently the petitioner again started issuing bill on flat rate and also added Rs,19436 as arrears in the monthly bill, despite the fact that said amount had already been declared as unjustified by the WAPDA authorities after due inquiry. As the petitioner despite repeated requests by the respondents failed to correct the error and kept on threatening them to disconnect their electricity connection in case said amount was not paid, therefore, Muhammad Hussain predecessor in interest of the respondents filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was bound to pay the charges on open rate and not on the basis of flat rate and that demand of disputed amount was illegal, against facts and ineffective qua his rights; and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from recovering the said amount and in case of his default in payment of disputed amount to disconnect his electricity connection. The suit was contested by the petitioner justifying its, claim. The learned trial Court after framing of issues and recording evidence of the parties, vide judgment, dated 15-9-2000 dismissed the suit. Against the above dismissal of their suit, the respondents filed an appeal which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge on 16- 7-2003, as such their suit was decreed. Hence, this Civil Revision.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as the very letter whereby necessary correction was ordered, was never issued by the department, therefore, WAPDA authorities were justified in raising the demand and recovering the said amount from the respondents after disclosure of the fault through audit report (Exh. D-4), dated 24-9-1994 and that the learned trial.
Court rightly dismissed the suit of the respondents but the learned Additional District Judge wrongly accepted their appeal, whereas, respondents could not claim any benefit accrued to them through the alleged letter, dated 24-10-1993 .
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this petition by arguing that as held by this Court in "Water and Power Development Authority, etc v. Umaid Khan" (1988 CLC 501), no amount could be recovered from the consumer on the basis of audit report as the audit affair is between the WAPDA and its audit department and no audit report could in any manner make the consumer liable for any amount and the same could not bring about any agreement between the WAPDA and consumer making consumer liable on the basis of audit report. Further it is argued that before initiating proceedings against the respondents on the basis of so called audit objection, neither the respondents were issued any notice nor they were ever joined in the proceedings. The learned counsel further contends that no effort was made by the WAPDA authorities to prove that the said letter was either forged or did not carry the signatures of the concerned officer, whereas, Executive Engineer who had issued the said letter could easily be produced before the trial Court to disprove his signatures affixed on the said letter. The final argument of the learned counsel for respondents is that the learned Additional District Judge on proper and correct appraisal of facts as well as law rightly allowed their appeal and decree the suit.
5. Arguments considered. Record perused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy the Court that ' ' before initiating proceedings against the respondents on the basis of the audit report, either any show-cause notice was issued to the respondents or they were joined with the proceedings to justify the audit report. This Court in the above cited judgment has in unequivocal terms held that audit objection is neither binding on the consumer nor the consumer can be held responsible for the fault of the department as pointed out in the audit report and there is a considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the Executive Engineer to whom the letter, dated 24-10- 1993 is attributed, could be produced by WAPDA in its evidence before the learned trial Court to disprove his signatures on the said letter and by not producing the Executive Engineer and withholding his evidence is sufficient to presume in terms of Article 129(g) of Qanoon-e-Shandat Order that same if produced, would have been unfavourable to it. It appears that in order to save the skin of its own employees responsible for issuing the letter, dated 24-10-1993 (if presumed to be bogus), the amount was added to the account of the respondents without any notice or affording them opportunity of hearing and also without fixing the person liable for issuance of said letter, most probably by taking advantage of section 54-A of the Electricity Act. It also appears to be a futile attempt on the part of the concerned delinquent official/officer to meet with the audit objection; the entire proceedings were initiated against the respondents. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge does not indicate that the same is either perverse, against record or suffers from misreading/non-reading of evidence, rather the same is based on correct follow of law laid down by this Court in the cited judgment. This civil revision, therefore, is without substance and is dismissed as such with no order as to costs.