APPLICATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDER DATED 29-09-2010 & FOR PROCEEDINGS U/S 32(2) READ WITH S.36 PCP Act, 2005 DUE TO DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION
1. This date was fixed for the arguments which have been heard alongwith perusal of present file as well as the file of the main complaint being also pending and fixed for this date which is being also disposed off today by separate order of this date as such I proceed to dispose off the present application by discussion in the following paragraphs.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the order of this court dated 29-09-2010 has not been implemented by the respondents as such action should be initiated and punishment should be awarded to the respondents and Rs.20,000/- should be recovered from the respondents as litigation charges including counsel fee.
3. The application has been contested by the respondents by filing joint written reply to the effect that the order under implementation was an ex-parte order on which compliance was made on gaining the knowledge by removal of the electric connections; that the absence from the proceedings was not intentional; that the application for cancellation of said order was filed on gaining the knowledge; that the order has been cancelled by acceptance of the application of the respondents; that the present application is not maintainable in such situation; that no loss has been caused to the petitioner; that the application is baseless; that the same should be dismissed.
4. The back ground of the application is to the effect that the following order was passed in connection with the main complaint on 29-09-2010 that:- 'the complaint is partially accepted to the extent of removal of illegal connections from the transformer of the claimant'.
5. Unconditional apology for the delay caused in the compliance of the said order is being tendered by learned counsel for the respondents repeatedly during the arguments while justifying the reasons of the delay to the effect that the concerned consumers who were to suffer by the removal of the connections had filed civil suit and stay was issued by the learned civil court against the present respondents but when this court clarified by subsequent order that the stay is not binding against the order of this court then the order was complied by removal of the connections.
6. I have observed that the petitioner has not denied the fact that the undesired electric connections have been removed from his electric transformer in compliance with the previous order of this court. It means that the delay was caused due to the stay of the civil court, therefore I find that the respondents deserve the acceptance of the apology. The respondents are therefore entitled to the dropping of the contempt proceedings.
7. As far as the request about the awarding of litigation charges is concerned, I find that the same is not possible during the proceedings of this miscellaneous application because the purpose of this application should be limited to the implementation of the earlier order which has already been achieved as such the petitioner is not entitled to the litigation charges and counsel fee in connection with the present application.
8. For what has been discussed above, the application is disposed off by acceptance of the apology and the contempt proceedings are dropped.
9. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. A copy of this order would be available for publishing on the internet to the website of Punjab Consumer Protection Council, 135-J, Model Town, Lahore for public disclosure and easy access of information to the consumers relating to the products and services in accordance with Rule 25 of PCP Rules 2009.
11. The file of this application is to be consigned to the record room of this court duly page marked with proper index and after due completion and made available for issuance of attested copies and kept under safe custody till the period fixed for destruction in accordance with the Rules & Orders of Honourable Lahore High Court.