' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks restoration of electricity meters No,..203 807 & 203519 installed at his premises viz. Zarfashan Street No, 51, Ravi Road, Lahore by declaring the act of respondents Mega void and without lawful authority.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is a 'commercial consumer of two meters installed at his premises, Zarfashan Street No, 51 Ravi Road Lahore. On 28.06.2013, respondents No, 4 & 5. Alongwith respondent. No, 1 came to the factory of the petitioner without any prior notice or intimation and by disconnecting supply removed both the electric meters. F.I.R. No, 600/2013 under Section 461, PPC at Police Station Shafiqabad, Lahore was also registered at the instance of the SDO/LESCO Amin Park Sub-Division, Lahore. At the time of raid respondents No, 4 & 5 and DCO Task Force also took away all electricity apparatus including 2 Transformers 200-KVA and 400-KVA, 4 MDI sealed Meters, Cable HT LT 12 Meter, LT cable 12 meters and 7 pieces single core, however, on 24.07.2013, the petitioner had received the said articles on Superdari vide order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. On 03.07.2013, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration with mandatory injunction for restoration of his electricity connections before the learned Civil Court at Lahore in which on 09.07.2013 respondent No, 5 was directed to restore the electricity connection. Upon his refusal the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt petition wherein a reply was sought from respondent No, 5 and a direction was issued to comply with the said order.
An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned District Judge Lahore for compliance of the order dated 09,07.2013 as well as 29.07.2013 and likewise respondent No, 5 also filed appeal against the said order which are pending before the learned Additional District Judge at Lahore, hence seeks restoration of the meters connections.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing is outstanding against the petitioner as he has been paying the bills regularly; that the allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Is that sanctioned load of electricity connections is 310-KW whereas petitioner's work load was 408- KW in fact the connective load was 408-KW, whereas the work load remained under sanctioned which is evident from the history of MDI column on the last month bill the petitioner was consuming 470-KW from both the meters installed at his premises which was received through one meter and the other meter was not using because less volume of production. Places reliance "Abdullah Mohammad Peer Mohammed v. Karachi Municipal Corporation and 3 others" (PLD 1971 S.C. 130) to submit that the petitioner is entitled under Articles 4 & 10-A of the Constitution to electricity supply and is always willing to pay any outstanding amount for the consumption of electricity as he has been using earlier without committing any default, hence prays for the restoration of two meters.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents No, 2 to 5 submits that the question raised in this writ petition pertains to factual controversy, therefore, the writ petition is not competent; that the petitioner has been using electricity from one meter into his factory which is beyond his load capacity; that 'the petitioner who is admittedly running the factory has committed an offence of abstraction of electricity; that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of any detection bill. Places reliance on "Multan Electric Power Company Ltd. Through Chief Executive and another v. Muhammad Ashiq and others" (PLD 2006 SC 328),
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. A perusal of the file reveals that the petitioner has paid the last bill for the month of July, 2013 amounting to Rs, 5,26,744/-. It has not been argued before this Court on behalf of the respondents that any arrears remained outstanding against the petitioner for which he committed any default.
It has also not been denied on behalf of the respondents that any notice was served upon the petitioner prior to disconnection/removal of the meters from the premises of the petitioner.
Admittedly, no loss caused to the respondents by the petitioner so for calculated on which detection bill was issued to the petitioner. It was rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that dispute relating to detection bill on account of theft of abstraction squarely lies within the jurisdiction of Civil Court and neither the Provincial Government nor the Advisory Board/Electric Inspector had any jurisdiction upon the dispute. However, the record reveals that order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction; a direction was issued to the respondents to restore the disputed meters connection subject to payment of charges due to the petitioner. The record further reveals that this order has not been suspended by the Appellate Court, therefore, still is intact and holds the field with its full legal force.
7. Without going into the controversial questions of fact it will be appropriate that respondents be allowed to follow the procedure by complying with the order of Civil Court to which this Court also subscribes. Undoubtedly, supply of electricity is a lifeline for any industry. Any outstanding amount so calculated by the authority will remain the liability of the petitioner, which he is bound to discharge. In this view of the matter I allow this petition and direct the respondents to restore the electricity connections to the petitioner and any disputed bill shall be adjudicated upon after hearing the petitioner.