ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.--- The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging an electricity bill for the month of May 2000 maintaining therein that Sultan Foundation is a welfare/charitable institution, who was paying electricity bill to the petitioners/defendants under commercial tariff A-2 but later on Government vide letter No. 2(1)/P.L.Secy/PM/99 dated 19th April, 1999 directed the WAPDA Authorities that Sultan Foundation being a welfare Trust institution deserves the same treatment at par with the Government Schools, thereafter, petitioners/defendants started to send the bills under domestic tariff-Al instead of commercial tariff A-II. Later on, the petitioners/defendants without issuing the notice to the respondent/plaintiff changed the tariff and send the bill to the respondent/plaintiff's institution under tariff-A2, which is illegal, void and against the law and facts. The same was contested by petitioners/defendants and after the settlement of issued, the parties adduced their following evidence:-
2. The respondent/plaintiff produced Ihsan Ullah son of Haji Muhammad Ismail as PW-1 and produced registration certificate as Ex.P1, Bye laws of the Sultan Foundation as Ex.P2, Registration certificate issued by Deputy Director (Admn) Directorate of Secondary Education Faisalabad, Ex.P3, directive of Prime Minister Ex.P4 and electricity bills as Ex.P5 while closing the oral as well as documentary evidence.
3. On the other hand, the petitioners/defendants produced Muhammad Umar S.D.O. Wapda City Sub-Division Taba Tek Singh, as DW-1 and learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants closed the oral as well as documentary evidence.
'4. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.5.2002, the Civil Court dismissed the suit of respondent/plaintiff, subsequently, appeal was filed, which was accepted by Additional District Judge, Taba Tek Singh vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2004.
5. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioners/defendants have come before. This Court through this Civil revision.
6. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants are that respondent/plaintiff was originally provided commercial electricity connection and on the representation made on behalf of the school to the Prime Minister, the same was changed into domestic tariff-Al and the respondent/plaintiff managed the said change while exerting political influence and it has also come on the record that the respondents/plaintiff has constructed 155 shops, which are also availing the electricity of facility and that respondent/plaintiff deserves the commercial tariff-All. It is further submitted that appellate Court has exercised its jurisdiction in an erroneous manner, therefore, the judgment and decree of the appellate. Court be set-aside.
7. Conversely, the contentions of learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff are that conversion of tariff from domestic to commercial is without issuing any notice and thus the appellate Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while decreeing the suit of respondent/plaintiff.
8. Adversaries heard and record perused.
9. The respondent/plaintiff produced Muhammad Manzoor LDC, City Sub-Division Wapda as PW-I and according to him, the electricity bill is being changed from Jinnah Public School under tariff A-I and that notice was issued to the consumer for changing the tariff from A-I to All. Ihsan Ullah, the manager of Sultan Foundation entered into witness box as PW22 and made statement that it is a welfare educational institution registered with the Social Welfare and Education Departments and that the Wapda had been charging the electricity bill from them under the commercial tariff-All and that a directive was issued to the Wapda in the month of April 1999 thereafter, the tariff was converted into a domestic one and he further stated that in the month of May, 2000, the petitioners/defendants again send the electricity bill under the commercial tariff A-II without issuing any notice for the conversion of same. He added that from the welfare institutions, the bills were being charged under the domestic tariff-Al.
10. On the other side Muhammad Umar while appearing as DW-I submitted that connection to the respondent/plaintiff was sanctioned under commercial tariff A-II and that respondent had been paying the bills under the said tariff for about 10 years. According to him as per rules, the tariff of the respondent/plaintiff should have been commercial A-II. In answer to the question during the course of cross-examination, the said DW-1 stated that no notice was issued to the respondent/plaintiff before changing the tariff from domestic to commercial A-2, which was mandatory provision of law.
11. It is borne out from record that initially respondent/plaintiff was issued electricity bill under the commercial tariff A-II and subsequently, in the year 1999 the same wac- changed into domestic tariff Al. It is proved on the record that the petitioners/defendants did not issue any notice to the respondent/plaintiff before conversion of the tariff from domestic A-I to commercial A-2. It is thus held that the petitioners/defendants should not have changed the nature of tariff without issuing the notice to the respondent/plaintiff. The appellate Court has rightly set-aside the judgment and decree of the Civil Court and decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned appellate Court while passing the judgment impugned, thus the same does not call for any interference. Resultantly, the instant revision petition having no force is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Civil Revision .