KHALID MAHMOOD J.---Through this writ filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioners seek the constitutional jurisdiction of this .Court praying for:- "setting aside of orders of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 dated 8-5-2006 and 15-9-2007 and dismissal of complaint filed by respondent No.1 ".
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was granted a contract for renovation works of WAPDA Rest Murree Road Abbottabad, where two electricity meters were installed. Two bills amounting to Rs.1,39,137/- were issued and respondent No.1 raised objections as he allegedly used electricity from meter A/c No.17944049A-2 and he never used electricity meter bearing A/c No.17944030A-2. Respondents complained time and again against these bills and ultimately filed a complaint before Electric Inspector N.-W.F.P. Peshawar to which petitioners filed replication. The Electric Inspector N.-W.F.P. Peshawar accepted the complaint in respect of A/c No.1794409A-2 vide order dated 8-5-2006 and feeling aggrieved both the parties preferred appeals and Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Irrigation and Power Department Peshawar, dismissed both the appeals vide order dated 15-9-2007. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that orders of both the forums below are against law and facts, as the respondent No.1 had used both the electricity meters and wrongly refused payment of their bills. It was argued that both the forums have not properly appreciated the record of the case and wrongly and illegally passed impugned orders, which are liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the contentions of petitioners and supported the impugned orders.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Admittedly, respondent No.1 carried out the constructions/ renovation works of 'WAPDA Rest House from August, 2003 to April 2004 and during this period he used electricity for cooking/residential purpose in addition to that used in construction/renovation works. It is also on record that no meter in the name of respondent was installed in the Rest House. The assessment of 6000 units against A/c No.17944030-04 was actual reading while the second was billed on the method of direct connection whereas consumer stated that he had neither used electricity to the tune of 6000 units nor he had taken direct connection and in case of direct connection the meter reading is not required and assessment was made on account of contradiction reflects the inefficiency of petitioners. The main argument of the petitioners was that Electric Inspector had no jurisdiction to decide the matter u/s 26(6) of Electricity Act and the matter should have been resolved by the Civil Court as respondent was charged for dishonestly using the electricity through direct connection. The relevant section, which petitioner referred is 26-A of Electricity Act of 1910, reads as under:-- "26A. Dishonest abstraction of consumption of energy.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 23, the licensee may charge the consumer on the basis of one or more of the following considerations for the amount of energy deemed to have been dishonestly abstracted, consumed or used, for he period during which the meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus had, in the opinion of the licensee,. Remained connected, disconnected, injured, altered for prevented from registering the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply:- (a).Consumer's connected load or maximum demand in kilowatt during any period; (b).Consumer's. Maximum consumption of energy in kilowatt hours during any period;
(c) consumer's load factor;
(d) the power factor of consumer's load;
(e) the hours and the time of which the energy is deemed to have been abstracted, consumed or used by the consumer; and
(f) the purpose for which the energy is deemed to have been abstracted, consumed or used by the consumer.
7. In the present case, respondent had used the electric supply through impugned electric meter installed in the rest house. Respondent never served any notice for dishonest or illegal use of electricity. In fact respondent during stay in the WAPDA Rest House concerned used the electricity through meter installed therein. The electricity bills were regularly issued wherein consumed electricity was mentioned. The dispute was regarding the excess readings mentioned in the impugned bills. In case of any difference or dispute between a licensee or consumer the forum for resolving the dispute is only Electric Inspector. The very sect ion 26(6) is reproduced as under:-- "Where any difference or dispute arises between a licensee and a consumer as to whether any meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus is or is not correct the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electric Inspector, within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of such application, after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, and where the meter; (maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus) has, in the opinion of the Electric Inspector, ceased to be correct, the Electric Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during such time as the meter, indicator or apparatus has not, in the opinion of the Electric Inspector, been correct; and, where the Electric Inspector fails to decide the matter of difference or dispute within the said period or where either the licensee or the consumer decline to accept the decision of the Electric Inspector, the. Matter shall be referred to the Provincial Government whose decision shall be final: Provided that, before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electric Inspector under his subsection, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do."
8. Petitioner relied on case titled Water and Power Development Authority v. Mian Muhammad Riaz and another reported as PLD 1995 Lahore 56 but the same has no nexus with the present case, because referred case relates to dishonestly extracted electricity. In the present case there is dispute regarding over billing due to incorrect reading, hence, present case is distinguishable from that of referred case.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case there appears no misreading or non-reading of facts on record and it is held that both the forums having exclusive jurisdiction in the matter had rightly appreciated the facts of the case and passed impugned orders.
10. Consequently, this writ petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.