HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J. --- Petitioner Peer Muhammad son of Lillah has impugned through this Constitutional petition the revised demand notice dated 3.10.2006, issued by respondent No. 4 Deputy Manager (Operations), M.E.P.C.O., Division Rajanpur, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the cost of transformer to be installed by the respondent M.E.P.C.O.MAPDA for supply of electricity for tubewell to the petitioner.
2.. The petitioner being an agriculturist applied for electricity connection for agricultural tubewell respondent No. 4 allowed the application and issued demand notice of two kinds, one for Rs.
14,400/-, and the other for Rs. 8,000/-, which amounts were deposited by the petitioner and he was supplied the electricity connection; the petitioner continued irrigating his land from 'tubewell for which he had got sanctioned the electricity connection and he continued to pay electricity bills and never defaulted. Copies of some of the 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. 1,50,260/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second demand notice dated 3.10.2006 for deposit of Rs. 1,50,260/- is based on mala fide. Contended that at the time of, sanction of connection of the electricity for the tubewell the respondent WAPDA officials did not mention any such thing that thereafter there will be further demand for deposit of Rs. 1,50,260/-. ,5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent MEPCO/WAPDA submitted that tubewell connection was given to the petitioner as per Authority Circular No. 531- 52/DGC/DD(R&CP)/58006, dated 30.7.2005 which has been withdrawn vide letter dated 11.3.2006; thereafter no authority was competent to sanction the connection nor any person was in a position to get it therefore the present demand notice as price of the transfer is in accordance with law. 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 of 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 revised demand notice for deposit of Rs. 1,50,260/- 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 electricity connection was sanctioned and issued demand notice for deposit of Rs. 14,400/- and Rs. 8,000/-, thereafter new demand for deposit of Rs. 1,50,260/- 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 officials of WAPDA the petitioner cannot be burdened without any lawful justification. The notice dated 3.10.2006 issued by the respondent M.E.P.C.O. For deposit of Rs, 1,50,260/- is declared illegal and without lawful authority and the same is struck down. The respondents are further directed to continue supply of electricity to the petitioner-consumer for his tubewell.
8. With the above observation and 'direction this writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. .