' SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J. --- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have assailed orders dated 19.03.2013 and 27.05.2014, passed by the Electric Inspector, Government of the Punjab, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad (respondent No. 3) and the Member Appellate, National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA)
Islamabad (respondent No. 2) respectively.
2. Briefly stated, the facts, as gleaned out from the instant petition, are that respondent No. 1 filed an application before respondent No. 3 within the purview of Section 24(2) read with 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 which was contested by the petitioners and the same was accepted by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 19.03.2013 and the bill amounting to Rs. 3,16,937/- imposed against respondent No. 1 was declared illegal. Against order dated 19.03.2013 the present petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 which was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.20104; hence the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the sole ground of limitation; that delay in filing of appeal was due to fulfilment of codal formalities being government department; that respondent No. 2 did not see that respondent No. 3 granted relief beyond the prayer clause of respondent No. 1 and that the petitioners have been knocked out on the basis of technicalities.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the documents annexed with this petition I have observed that respondent No. 3 passed order on 19.03.2013 whereas the petitioners filed appeal before respondent No. 2 on 01.07.2013 despite the fact that certified copy was obtained by them on 22.04.2013. According to Section 38(3) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, period of limitation for appeal against order of Electric Inspector is 30 days. Admittedly, the appeal instituted by the petitioners was hopelessly time-barred and no plausible reason was advanced for condonation of such delay.
5. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the appeal was filed with delay due to fulfilment of codal formalities, is concerned, suffice it to observe that the same hardly justifies condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
6. Even otherwise, it is duty of the Court to decided whether proceedings have been filed within the period of limitation or not, as held in Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-IV, Karachi v.
Hakim Ali Zardari (2006 SCM R 170) and period of limitation cannot be extended without any justification.
7. For what has been discussed above, I see no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed.