' MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.--Through this revision petition, the petitioners/department have assailed the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge-IV, Bannu, dated 10-10-2006, vide which the appeal of plaintiff/ respondent was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 21-6- 2006 of learned Civil Judge VII, Bannu was set-aside, resultantly the suit of plaintiff/respondent was decreed.
2. Succinct but necessary facts given rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Bannu, seeking declaration to the effect that electricity bill for the month of April 2005 amounting to Rs,63575 with regard to meter Account No, 66-300848006 was wrong, illegal and ineffective upon his rights. Perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners/ defendants was also prayed for to restrain them from disconnecting the supply and energy, not to -make alteration in M&T report and not to send bill containing such illegal fine/ arrears.
' The suit was resisted by petitioners/defendants by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording pro and contra evidence dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21-6-2006. Respondent/plaintiff being not satisfied with the judgment and decree of learned trial Court preferred appeal before the District Judge, Bannu, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, Bannu vide judgment and decree dated 10-10-2006. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the appellate Court below the petitioners/defendants have filed the instant revision petition.
3. Mr. Syed Fakhur-ud-Din Shah learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that electricity meter installed in the crush machine of respondent/ plaintiff is not in his name rather is in the name of one Muhammad Hanif as such he has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit. He further argued that findings of the learned Appellate Court regarding the matter to be decided by the electric inspector is against the law, as the respondent/plaintiff himself approached the civil Court, hence, matter was rightly decided by the civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that appellate Court has not taken into consideration the M&T report, hence, judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court is not sustainable. He requested for setting aside the judgment and decree of appellate Court and to restore the judgment and decree of learned trial Court.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff Mr. Anwar-ulHaq, advocate supported the judgment and decree of learned appellate Court and requested for maintaining the same.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. First objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force at all, because admittedly the electricity meter has been installed in the crush machine owned and run by the respondent/ plaintiff. As per section 2(c) of the Electricity Act, 1910 "consumer" means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or who is the owner or occupier of the premises, which are for the time being connected for the purposes of supply of energy with the work of a licensee. Definition referred above makes it clear that respondent/ plaintiff is a consumer and has got a cause of action and locus standi to bring the suit.
7. Secondly the respondent/plaintiff was charged on account of slowness of meter to 33% and there is no allegation against the respondent/plaintiff for using or abstracting electricity through any illegal means. In such circumstances, petitioners/ defendants were under obligation to prove the charge against consumer but the evidence produced by the petitioner/ defendants nowhere suggests that what test was applied to the meter and how it was determined that the meter was slow by 33%. As per section 26(4) of the Electricity Act, 1910 licensee is not at liberty to remove the meter when dispute is regarding correctness of meter bill and unless determined as per provision of section 26(6) of the Act ibid. In the instant case petitioners/defendants removed the electricity meter without resorting to provisions of section 26(6) and assessed the amount of fine by their own, which is totally against their mandate. Petitioners/ defendants have badly failed to prove that the provisions of section 26-A were complied with while preparing the disputed detection bill, and to justify the amount. PLD 2001 Lahore 31, 1983 CLC 3315, 1983 CLC 211, 1986 MLD 680, 1989 CLC 2345, PLD 1995 Lahore 56, 1999 CLC 1591 and. PLD 2001 Lahore 31 relied.
8. Admittedly the dispute is in respect of meter which involves section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 and the licensee could neither evaluate the compensation nor assess the bill under section 26-A of the Act ibid. Detection bill issued to consumer was thus without lawful authority and void ab initio.
9. For the foregoing reasons judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court is the result of proper appreciation of law and facts. I have not been able to find out any misreading or non- reading or any illegality or any material irregularity in the impugned finding of the learned appellate Court. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is dismissed. No order as to costs.