IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, J.---Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed that removal of the electricity meter be declared illegal, without jurisdiction and violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts succinctly required for determination of the instant writ petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely Mehar Muhammad Latif was owner of Ahata Mehar Khuda Bakhsh. It is stated that the said Ahata is a huge piece of land where other legal heirs of Mehar Muhammad Latif are also residing. It is further stated that the C.N.G. Station, Anti- Corruption Building, Faysal Bank and Mosque etc. Are also situated within the said Ahata. It is also stated by the petitioner that all the inhabitants of the Ahata Mehar Khuda Bakhsh are using electricity connections of different reference numbers having different meters. It is further stated that one of the inhabitants of the said ahata namely Mehar Muhammad Hafeez had also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents, which has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-6-2009, who, according to the petitioner, was getting electricity through Reference No,041254-00162071U while the petitioner is getting electricity through Reference No,041254-00163007U since 1991 and there is no default on the part of the petitioner towards the electricity charges. The petitioner has paid the last bill on 23-6-2009. After dismissal of the suit of Mehar Muhammad Hafeez respondents Nos.2 and 3 removed the meter of the petitioner without any reason and justification.
3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have not issued any notice under section 24-A of the Electricity Act, 1910. Further the respondents before disconnecting/removing B the electricity meter of the petitioner should have issued a notice of demand as such the meter of the petitioner had been removed illegally, which is against the fundamental rights given to the citizens under the Constitution.
4. Report and parawise comments were called in the case, same have been submitted. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is further submitted that the petitioner and his brother are habitual defaulters. According to the rules where any default has occurred, all electricity connections are liable to be disconnected. It is also stated that the notice under section 24-A of the Electricity Act, 1910 has been duly issued to the petitioner vide notice dated 18-5-2007 which has been received by the petitioner as well as his brother Mehar Muhammad Hafeez on 25-5-2007. Both the petitioner and his brother Mehar Muhammad Hafeez are real brothers; their father Mehar Muhammad Latif was a defaulter and after receipt of the notice, one of the brothers Mehar Muhammad Hafeez after four days filed a civil suit and obtained a stay order and kept the suit pending for nearly about two years, which has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-6-2009 and thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed on 26-6-2009 by the other brother Mehar Muhammad Naseem. It is stated that the petitioner and Mehar Muhammad Hafeez are legal heirs of Mehar Muhammad Latif, who was a defaulter of a huge amount of Rs,1,94,231 and in this regard a notice dated 18-5-2007 had been issued, which the petitioner as well as his brother Mehar Muhammad Hafeez had duly received the same and in view of the same the said electricity connection of Mehar Muhammad Latif was disconnected and the meter was removed. It is further stated that after that the petitioner earlier got installed another meter under Reference No,26-1254-08938445, which was also running in the premises and subsequently on the basis of non-payment of Rs,64,120 the same was also disconnected. This meter was installed in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner. It is further stated that after disconnection of this second meter the third meter was installed, which was bearing Reference No,26-1254-08938490 and the same was also disconnected on the basis of the non-payment of Rs,10,626. The total outstanding amount against the defaulter premises is Rs,1,94,231 and a notice No,3213 dated 18-5-2007 was served to the petitioner, who duly received the same. It is also stated that the petitioner and his brothers are habitual defaulters and according to the rules where any default has occurred, all the other electricity connections are liable to be disconnected. It is further stated that in the application form for the electricity connection, there are certain conditions:--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' In view of the same, petitioner is liable to pay for all these defaults. It is further argued that according to the statutory condition No,25 for the supply of electricity, any complaint or grievance arising to the consumer, the same is redressable through a complaint or application to the Electric Inspector, as such, the petitioner had the alternative remedy of availing the same in view of which this writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Arguments heard, material made available perused.
6. There is no denying the fact that the defaulted Ahata belongs to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and Mehar Muhammad Latif was the owner of the property, who had got obtained electricity connection through Reference No,1254-080-06810002 and thereafter on default in the payment of the bills subsequently meters were also got installed at the premises by the petitioner and his family members and subsequently, they defaulted in the payment of the bills. In view of the same respondents issued notice; dated 18-5-2007 which had been duly served upon the petitioner and his brother Mehar Muhammad Hafeez and on the receipt of the notice Mehar Muhammad Hafeez had instituted a suit which they prolonged for more than two years and on the dismissal of the said suit, the other brother the present petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice had been issued to the petitioner cannot sustain when the said notice has been duly received and signed by the petitioner and his brother Mehar Muhammad Hafeez. Moreover, according to rules the premises where a default occurs, all the other electricity connections are also affected and in view of the same I the petitioner's electricity meter had been disconnected. Further, the petitioner being the legal heir of Mehar Muhammad Lateef is liable to pay the huge amount outstanding against the said premises.
In this regard the petitioner while applying for the electricity, meter had given a specific undertaking as stated in the application form. In view of the same, the petitioner was bound to clear the dues. According to the record made available by the respondents with regard to the said premises, the petitioner and his brother, it appears are habitual defaulter.
7. The petitioner has the alternative remedy under statutory condition No,25 of the Electricity Act, 1910 to file a complaint before the Electric Inspector as such; the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. In view of the same, this writ petition is not maintainable. No illegality has been committed by the respondents; therefore, this writ petition has no foot to stand and the same is dismissed.