' This petition challenges the orders passed by the Electric Inspector dated 10.05.2008. Against this decision an appeal was filed before the Advisory Board constituted u/S. 36(3) of the Electricity Act, 1910 to hear appeals therefrom. That appeal was filed on 10.07.2008 and the decision of the Advisory Board is dated 4.4.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the Electric Inspector dated 10.05.2008 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect on the simple ground that the said decision is in contravention of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 by virtue of which a decision by the Electric Inspector has to be announced within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of such application and where the Electric Inspector fails to decide the matter of difference or dispute within the said period, the matter shall be referred to the Provincial Government whose decision shall be final. He submits that it is admitted on all hands that the decision of the Electric Inspector was rendered after ninety days. His case, therefore, is that since that decision is ultra wires, the superstructure built upon it must fall to the ground. This means that the decision of the Advisory Board should also be set aside on these basis.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on Section 38 to submit that the Regulation of Generator, Transmission & Distribution of Electric Power (Act of 1997) has changed the forum for the challenge to all such disputes. He further submits that in the Act of 1997 the prohibition to decide the matter within ninety days and it being visited such consequences as is being canvassed by the petitioner is not there.
3. The relevant provision of law viz S. 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 on which would turn the decision of this case is reproduced as under:-- [(6) Where any difference or dispute arises between a licensee and a consumer as to whether any meter, maximum demand indictor or other measuring apparatus is or is not correct the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by. An Electric Inspector, within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of such application, after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, and where the meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus has, in the opinion of the Electric Inspector, ceased to be correct, the Electric Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time as the meter, indicator or apparatus has not, in the opinion of the Electric Inspector, been correct; and, where the Electric Inspector fails to decide the matter of difference or dispute within the said period or where either the licensee or the consumer decline to accept the decision of the Electric Inspector, the matter shall be referred to the Provincial Government whose decision shall be final.
4. It is evident from a bare reading of the said provision that the Electric Inspector has mandatorily to decide the matter before him within ninety days and must be referred to the Provincial Government if the decision is not made within that period. The Provincial Government shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter expeditiously and without referring to the Electric Inspector. The intention of the Legislature seems to be to enable such decision to be taken without delay and to confer supervisory jurisdiction on the Provincial Government over the Electric Inspector so that negligence and delay should not be allowed and countenanced. It is an established principle of interpretation of statutes that superfluity cannot be attributed to the Legislature and anything said in the law must be construed to have a meaning and purpose. It cannot be allowed to be set at naught at the whims of the parties and particularly in this case which involves rights relating to Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a reported judgment of this Court viz WAPDA through Chairman, and 5 others v. Muhammad Amir Malik and 2 others (2006 YLR 2612) which is' on all fours with the instant case. The relevant Paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under: "A careful analysis of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 makes it abundantly clear that after the lapse of statutory period of 90 days, it is the Provincial Government which alone was vested with authority to decide the matter. In the instant case, the Electric Inspector had become functus officio. Hence, the orders of the Electric Inspector and that of the Advisory Board, impugned herein, are set aside, and the matter is referred to the Provincial Government for decision in accordance with law. Parties shall be at liberty to raise legal and factual objections and the Provincial Government shall resolve the issue expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law."
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has sought support from a notification of Govt. Of Punjab dated 10.06.2004 to submit that all such powers are to be exercised under the 1997 Act. That notification merely complies with the mandate of Section 38 (1)(a) of the 1997 Act' by conferring jurisdiction on the Electric Inspector already appointed by the Provincial Government. This notification, therefore, simply gives an effect to the letter of the law and does not offend the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and laid down in the judgment referred to by this Court.
6. This being the case, the petition is allowed and the orders of the Electric Inspector dated 10.05.2008 and that of Advisory Board dated 04.4.2011 are set aside. The Provincial Government shall now resolve the issue expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law in terms of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910.
' A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Secretary Energy, Govt. Of Punjab for necessary action and compliance.