Petitioner, a consumer, had a dispute with respondents over payment of electricity charges as a detection bill was issued against him and he was also directed to pay fixed charged as agreed according to his contract with the respondents. All these controversies were challenged by the petitioner before the Electric Inspector, Government of Punjab, Multan Region, which petition was heard and it was decided vide order dated 23.10.2007. Feeling aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal before the Advisory Board, Punjab Lahore whereby vide order dated 3.1.2009 findings of Electric Inspector on Issues No, 1 were reversed while findings on Issues No, 4 & 5 were modified.
Petitioner through this writ petition has now assailed the order dated 31.2009 passed by Advisory Board.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that findings of Advisory Board on Issue No, 1 are against law and facts of the case as Electric Inspector while deciding this issue regarding refund of Rs, 1,66,580/- has given cogent reasons but those findings were reversed. As far as findings of the Electric Inspector on Issues No, 4 and 5 are concerned, the Advisory Board did not take into consideration actual facts and law on the subject. Prayed that this writ petition be admitted for regular hearing.
3. At the very outset this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to address before this Court the question about the maintainability of this writ petition as the impugned order dated 3.1.2009 passed by Advisory Board/Respondent No, 1 was not challenged by the petitioner for about more than 2 years and then suddenly at this stage he is invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to challenge those findings which involve factual controversies and have firstly been thrashed out by the Electric Inspector/Respondent No, 2 and then subsequently by the Advisory Board/Respondent No,
1. It was also asked from the learned counsel to explain the delay as the principle of lathes was applicable and at this stage how with such a delay when this controversy is brought to this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction, this Court can interfere into the findings above mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to meet this objection only remained contended to argue that as the impugned order passed by Advisory Board was illegal, thus this writ petition was maintainable as no limitation is fixed for filing the writ petition. To support his arguments he cited "Desmond Vaz and others Vs. Karachi Building Control Authority through Chief Controller of Buildings Civil Centre, Karachi and others" (PLD 2005 Karachi 164).
4. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner at preliminary stage and perused the record.
5. If the controversy between petitioner and Respondents No, 3 to 7 is seen, it started in the year 2007. Matter was agitated before the Electric Inspector, which was decided by him on 23.10.2007 and that order was assailed in appeal before the Advisory Board/Respondent No, 2 and certain findings of facts were modified and reversed vide order dated 3.1.2009. Much time has been passed and learned counsel was not in a position to explain if the order passed by Advisory Board was acted upon or otherwise. Now after lapse of about 2 years it is challenged before this Court in extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction, as it involves factual controversy, which has already been decided and learned counsel has not been able to make out a case about the non-exercise of the jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal or exercising the jurisdiction which was not available with the Tribunal. It is not a case that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, rather it is agitated that the findings of fact on Issues No, 1, 4 & 5 were reversed or modified by. Respondent No, 1/Advisory Board which factual aspects cannot be interfered nor looked into by this Court at this stage. Even otherwise, on the principle of lathes when about more than two years have lapsed after passing of the impugned order, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable, resultantly, it is hereby dismissed in limine.