WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA Lahore and 7 others have challenged the judgment dated 20.12.2003 of learned Additional District Judge-II, Bannu whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment dated and decree dated 08.3.2007 of learned Civil Judge-II, Bannu, decreeing the suit of the respondent, was maintained.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that Anjum Tariq respondent brought a suit for declaration challenging the vires of letter dated 15.11.2000 vide which a fine of Rs,83,880/- was imposed by the petitioners on respondent's premises as detection charges. Plaintiff had also prayed for prohibitory and mandatory injunction firstly to restrain the petitioners from disconnecting the electric supply to the plaintiffs premises or to reconnect it in case during the pendency of the suit it has been discontinued.
The averments in the plaint are that plaintiff Anjum Tariq is the consumer of electricity of WAPDA for the last 18 years which was installed after proper test report and he used to pay the bills for actual consumption as and when received. It is averred in the plaint that on 22.11.2000 the WAPDA authorities removed the meter of the plaintiff without notice and instead installed a second meter and on the same day handed over two bills, one for consumption of electricity and the other for detection of illegal use of energy by the plaintiff Anjum Tariq. Challenge has been put to action dated 15.11.2000 regarding detection bill which has been termed as illegal, based on malafide and against the provisions of relevant law.
3. The defendants were summoned who submitted their detailed written statement and out of the pleadings of the parties, as many as six issues including the relief were framed. The parties led their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the data available on the record, passed a decree in favour of plaintiff-respondent vide Suit No, 71/1 decided on 08.3.2007. The petitioners-defendants, aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, filed Civil Appeal No, 103/13 which came for hearing before Muhammad Adil Khan, Additional District Judge-III, Bannu who, vide detailed judgment and decree dated 20.12.2003, while concurring with the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-defendants and hence, the instant revision petition.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent had been burdened with extra sum as he had illegally utilized the energy and when the WAPDA authorities detected the same, a detection bill was sent. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not taken into consideration the evidence produced by the petitioners-defendants in its true perspective and have illegally granted the decree in favour of the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the action taken by the WAPDA authorities was against the principles of natural justice as no notice regarding the removal or change of meter from the premises of the respondent was given nor anybody was 'associated when the meter was being removed by the WAPDA authorities and thus, the removal of meter, in the absence of the respondent, was violative of the provisions of Electricity Act, 1910.
6. I have gone through the record of the case and have considered the valuable arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
7. PW-1 Jehangir Abbasi, Junior Clerk, MNT appeared before the Court and he has categorically stated in examination-in-chief that there was no defect in the suit meter. The statement of Anjum Tariq respondent was recorded who has corroborated the contents of the plaint. Sher Daraz Meter Reading Supervisor appeared as PW-3 who has produced the meter reading from June, 2000 to March, 2002 Ex.P.W.1/1 which was strictly in accordance with the consumption data. DW-1 Nisar Ahmad LS-I was produced by the petitioners who stated that during the days when the meter from the premises of the respondent was removed, he was posted as LS-II in the concerned Sub Division PESCO WAPDA, Bannu. The meter of the respondent had been removed which was burdened with penalty of Rs,83,895/-. The meter was sent to Laboratory which was found defective. In cross examination he admitted that the meter had been subjected to penalty before Laboratory test.
8. This is the cardinal principle of law that before taking any action against any person, a notice must be given to him as envisaged under Section 20 of the Electricity Act and any action taken at the back of the consumer and without notice to him, will be violative of the principles of natural justice especially in the circumstances when admitted by DW-1 in his cross examination that before the Laboratory test, the fine was imposed on the respondent, meaning thereby that he was convicted before trial. The issuance of a notice is the vested right of a person or at least at the time of removing the meter, respectables from the locality ought to be associated with the proceedings.
Checking of the meter without notice to the consumer is violative of the principles of natural justice and is illegal as held in the judgment handed down in the B case of Water and Power Development Authority, through its Chairman WAPDA House, Lahore and others. Vs. Mian Shaukat Hayat (PLJ 2003 Lahore 1213).
9. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below are based on the correct appreciation of evidence. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned two Courts below have arrived at concurrent findings and have considered the evidence strictly in accordance with the established principles of appreciation of evidence which findings cannot be set at naught in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court as held in the dicta handed down in the cases of Abdur Rahim and another Vs. Mst. Jantay Bibi and others (2000 SCM R 346), Haji Muhammad Din Vs. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994. SC 291) and Muhammad Rasheed Ahmad Vs. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2002 SC 293).
10. Resultantly, this, revision petition being without merits is dismissed with no order as to costs.