'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Aslam son of Sardar Muhammad Afzal has impugned through this Constitutional petition the demand notice dated 3-10-2006, issued by respondent No,4 Deputy Manager (Operations), MEPCO, Division Rajanpur, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the cost of transformer to be installed by the respondent MEPCO/WAPDA for supply of electricity for tube-well to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner being an agriculturist applied for electricity connection for agricultural tube-well; respondent No,4 allowed the application had issued demand notice of two kinds, one for Rs,14,400, and the other for Rs,8000, which amounts were deposited by the petitioner and he was supplied the electricity connection; the petitioner continued irrigating his land from tube-well for which he had got sanctioned the IA electricity connection and he continued to pay electricity bills and never defaulted. Copies of enormous electricity bills consumed by the petitioner are appended with this petition.
3. Respondent No,4 allegedly with mala fide intention issued revised demand notice dated 3-10- 2006 for additional payment of Rs,1,77,300.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second demand notice dated 3-10-2006 for deposit of Rs,1,77,300 is based on mala fide. Contended that at the time of sanction of connection of the B electricity for the tube well the respondent WAPDA officials did not mention any such thing that thereafter there will be further demand for deposit of Rs,1,77,300.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent MEPCO/ WAPDA submitted that tube- well connection to the petitioner was sanctioned on his application made on 15-3-2003 from the village transformer in Jampur and was energized on 18-5-2006; the facility regarding installation of tube-well connection from village transformer was withdrawn vide authority Circular No,132- 45/D/G/DD/R CP) 58006 dated 11-3-2006; on withdrawal of the said facility, revised demand notice dated 30-10-2006 for the cost of transformer to the tune of Rs,1,77,300 was issued to the petitioners/ consumer. He made reliance on the cases reported as 2005 SCM R 1814 and Abdul Hague Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others 2000 SCM R 907.
6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on account of the act of public functionaries or officials the petitioner cannot be penalized. It was obligatory duty of MEPCO/WAPDA officials to check each and every thing at the time of sanctioning of the electricity connection and what were necessities which were required to be fulfilled by the consumers.
WAPDA Authorities executed an agreement with the petitioner. Now issuing of fresh demand notice for deposit of Rs,1,77,300 is illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The stance of the petitioner is correct.
Once the electricity connection was sanctioned and issued demand notice for deposit of Rs,14,400 and Rs,8000 after that new demand for deposit of Rs,1,77,300 is highly excessive, harsh and exorbitant for a small agriculturist when this section of life is already in big crisis and on account of any omission or illegal Act of the official s of WAPDA the petitioner cannot be burdened without any lawful jurisdiction. The notice dated 3-10-2006 issued by the respondent MEPCO for deposit of Rs,1,77,300 is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority and the same is stuck down. The respondents are further directed to continue supply of electricity to the petitioner-consumer for his tube-well.
8. With the above observation and direction this writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.