' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---This Revision Application has been filed against the judgment of the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Thatta dated 8-3-2011 in Civil Misc. Appeal .No,02 of 2010, whereby the learned trial Court. Had disposed of the said Appeal by directing the applicant to restore the electricity to the appellant/present respondent subject to his furnishing security documents in the sum of Rs,40,00,000 (Rupees Forty Lacs Only) and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
2. When this matter came before this Court, this Court in its order dated 11-4-2011 issued notice to the respondent and suspended the operation of the impugned order.
3. Today the case was fixed for arguments on the application for interim injunction filed by the applicant but both the learned counsel were prepared to argue the case for final disposal and therefore, I had admitted this revision application for regular hearing and decided to dispose of the same after hearing both the learned counsel.
4. I have heard Mr. Khalid Mehmood Dhoon learned counsel for the applicant and Mr: Naveed Ahmed learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Mr. Khalid Mehmood Dhoon initially informed me that the dispute between the parties is pending since the year 2003 when a raid was conducted by the applicant and it was discovered that the respondent was stealing the energy and for that various supplementary bills were issued. He submitted that initially a Civil Suit was filed by the present respondent which was dismissed and the appeal against the said order of the Civil Judge was also dismissed and the revision before this Court was withdrawn due to certain arrangements made between the parties. He submitted that a petition was filed before, this Court in which this Court vide its order dated 8-4-2010 referred the matter to the Electric Inspector to decide the dispute between the parties within two weeks and submit his report to the Court. Later on vide order of this Court dated 19-6-2010 after noting that the Electric Inspector had taken cognizance of the matter the petition was dismissed as it had become infructuous. He submitted that the Electric Inspector vide his order dated 22-7-2010 passed the following order:- "The bill issued for Rs,3138131 for the period from October-2000 to April, 2003 (31 months) is liable to be revised as per the recommendations of settlement committee i,e, for six months from November, 2002 to April, 2003 on the same basis, less already charged units during the same period i,e, 51 KW X 24 Hours X 30 Days X.06 Load factor less already charged units.
' The bill of July, 2006 for 35000 assessed units is found justified and liable to be paid.
' The excess reading of TOD meter which was installed on 20-9-2006 and up to March, 2007 was, liable to be adjusted. In this respect an amount of Rs,1419969 as allowance already pending, needs to be approved.
' The supplementary bill issued by the opponents for the period from September, 2007 to April, 2008 for 83681 units' amounting to Rs,434624 after scrutiny of the record, found justified and liable to be paid by the applicant.
6. He submitted that since this order was passed in excess of the jurisdiction and the authority conferred on, the Electric Inspector vide the provisions of the Electricity Act they challenged it before the Secretary Irrigation, Government of Sindh somewhere in August, 2010 but this appeal has not yet been heard and disposed of. He further submitted that the trial Court had initially decided the dispute in his favour against which an appeal had been filed before the Appellate Court who by the impugned order exceeded its jurisdiction and the authority as no Civil Court could adjudicate on the dispute arising from the issuance of notice under subsection (1) of section 24 or discontinuing the supply of energy to the licensee in view of nonpayment of bills. For this purpose he read out the provisions of section 54(c) of the Electricity Act, 1910. The learned counsel then submitted that since both the orders in favour of the respondents are illegal and in excess of jurisdiction, therefore, he had, filed this revision application and this Court while appreciating that he has a good prima facie case had suspended the order of the trial Court by its order dated 11-4- 2011 referred to above. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied on the following judgments:--
(1) Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited through Secretary v. Messrs Haji Hashim Haji Ahmed Brothers reported in 2003 YLR 2226
(2) 2010 CLC 436 Lahore
(3) 2004 SCM R 1679
(4) Multan Electric Powers Company Ltd. v. Muhammad Ashiq and anothei reported in PLD 2006 SC 328.
7. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.
8. The arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant have been strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. He submitted that upto 2003 he, as a law abiding citizen, was paying his electricity dues regularly and there were no arrears outstanding against him and in the year 2003 his factory was raided by the Electricity officials and huge bills for alleged illegal use of electrical energy were issued to him and from then onwards the dispute arose. He stated that two F.I.Rs, for theft of electricity were lodged against him by the applicant but in both these cases he has been acquitted in both the F.I.Rs, but this position is disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submitted that the Electric Inspector has considered the matter thoroughly and passed a detailed order substantiated with cogent reasons and has not surpassed his jurisdiction as he has not determined the actual payment due to or from the respondent but had only issued directions as to the disposal of the various bills which have been issued against him. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with law as he is suffering great losses and damages due to discontinuation of electricity and his business which depends upon continuous supply of electricity has been completely destroyed. He further submitted that no. Efforts have been made by the applicant to get their appeal heard urgently and get it disposed of so that the matter can be disposed of once for all and he is suffering because of the continuous lingering on of the matter which could have reached its final culmination point if the applicant made, efforts to get the appeal heard and disposed of at an early date. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be upheld and the applicant may be directed to restore the electricity in accordance with the terms specified by the learned Appellate Court.
9. I have examined the case in the light of the argument of the learned counsel and have perused the contents and the provisions of the Electricity Act and the judgments relied on by the learned counsel.
10. Although the learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently challenged the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector to pass the impugned order but this order has not been challenged before this Court but is subjudice before a competent Court in, accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act and therefore, I will refrain from giving any finding on the contention of the learned counsel for applicant that the Electric Inspector has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the above order as it will be decided by the Secretary Irrigation.
11. I have also gone through the impugned order and examined it in the light of section 54(c) of the Electricity Act and the judgments relied on by the learned counsel. For the sake of convenience section 54(c) of the Electricity Act is reproduced below: ' Bar of Jurisdiction. (1) Where a licensee gives a notice referred to in sub-section (1) of section 24 or discontinues supply of energy to a premises under the provisions of this Act, no Court shall make an order prohibiting the licensee from discontinuing supply of energy to the premises, or requiring him to restore supply of energy to such premises, and any such order made before the commencement of the' Electricity (Amendment Ordinance, 1979, shall cease to have effect: ' Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to a case in which the plaintiff, applicant or appellant, within a period of thirty days of the aforesaid date or at the time of filing the suit, application or appeal, as the case may be, deposits with the Court the amount assessed against him by the licensee and all further charges of the licensee as and when they become due and in the event of his failing to do so, any order prohibiting the licensee from discontinuing the supply of energy to the premises or requiring him to restore the supply of energy to the premises, if already made, shall cease to have effect.
(2) Where an amount has been deposited under subsection. (1), the Court shall direct it to be deposited in a Scheduled bank in the name of the licensee to the effect that in the case, the suit or appeal is decided against him, he shall repay the said amount to the plaintiff or appellant, as the case may be, with such reasonable return as the Court may determine.
12. A perusal of this section reveals that the jurisdiction of the Court has been barred in cases where a licenser gives a notice referred to in subsection (1) of section 24 or discontinues supply of energy to a premises under the provisions of this Act but it is a settled law that under other Acts where the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that only in cases where the action has been initiated under good faith the jurisdiction is barred and if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the action smells of mala fide then the. Court will exercise their jurisdiction. I am of the view that the act of respondent despite there being the order of the Electric Inspector which has been challenged before the Appellate Court but no decision of the Appellate Court has come and despite the order of the trial Court they have not yet restored the Electricity of the petitioner, smells of mala fide. I am, therefore, of the considered view that section 54(c) will not apply in this case. I have examined this view in the light of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel.
13. As far as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments are concerned the same are on the provisions of sections 26 and 26-A i,e, the powers of the Electric Inspector to adjudicate dispute and in these cases it has been held that the Electric Inspector has exceeded his jurisdiction. Since the matter of the .Report of Electric Inspector is not before me therefore, these cases have no nexus with the dispute before me. The judgment of this Court authored by the present Chief Justice of this Court in 2000 in the case of Hashim Haji Ahmed quoted supra also talks about the jurisdiction of the Court but since I am not deciding the dispute which has already been decided by the Electric Inspector, therefore, this case also has no nexus with the facts of the present case.
' As far the judgment of Maqsood Ahmed quoted supra is concerned the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court has held that the authorities have a right to disconnect the electricity if the plaintiff failed to pay Any charge of energy but in that case the arguments made before the learned Judge was that his case fell under section 26-A and not under section 24 of the Electricity Act and therefore, sec- tion 54(c) was not applicable to him and the learned Judge had held that reference to-section 26-A will not make any difference as once the charge of energy is calculated section 24(1) comes into play so does section 54(c)of the Act, the applicant has already pointed out that the charge under section 26-A has already been rightly or wrongly decided by the Electric Inspector whose order is still in field. I am therefore, of the opinion that this case also does not apply to the fact of the present case.
15. On the basis of the discussion I am of the opinion that the impugned order is a legal order which has been passed in accordance with law and no interference is called from this Court. I, therefore, dismiss this revision application and direct the applicant to comply with the directions given in the impugned order within seven days of this order and restore the electricity to the respondents subject to his complying with the directions given in the impugned order.
16. This revision application is disposed of in the above manner.