' SHAHID WAHEED, J.---The respondent No, 3, Sunahri Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter called the consumer) being a consumer of the petitioners under Reference No 24 1121 24009004U, tariff B-II with 309 KW sanctioned load filed a petition under section 38 of The Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, t997 read with section 26(6) and 24(2) of the Electricity Act, 1910 before the Electric Inspector, Lahore Region, Lahore/respondent No,2 and thereby called in question the electricity bill dated 7-8-2006. It was maintained in the petition that the impugned bill to the extent of bill adjustment amount of Rs, 905144.00 + 150000.00 as 33% slowness charges on account of changed multiplying factor from 40 to 60 and Rs, 60149.00 i,e, excess MDI charges exceeding 315 MDKW, (473-313 = 158 x 300 = 60149.00) was illegal.
2. In response to notice the petitioners entered appearance before the learned Electric inspector and contested the petition by filing a written statement. The petitioners in their written statement pleaded that an authorized checking team checked . The metering equipment of the consumer on 11-5-2006 and found the same 33 % slow; that after considering consumption data, the checking team came to the conclusion that the meter was slow since December, 2005; and, that in view of the slowness multiplying factor was enhanced from 40 to 60 and the detection bill was charged for the period w,e,f, December, 2005 to April, 2006.
3. The learned Electric Inspector after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties vide decision dated 10-7-2007 declared the detection bill illegal. The penultimate paragraph of the decision made by the learned Electric Inspector reads as under:-- "Therefore the detection bill raised by respondents from 12/2005 to 04/2006 amounting to Rs, 905144 is illegal and unjustified.
'Respondents are directed to withdraw the detection bill. Respondents have already charged the petitioner on the basis of 33 % slowness from 05/2006 onward till the replacement of the meter in 12/2006 which is correct with the exception that defective disputed meter has recorded abnormal MDI in 07/2006 beyond the capacity of 400KVA transformer. The respondents are directed to withdraw the 473 KW MDI charged in 07/2006 and charge the petitioner 337KW Mar i.e, the highest MDI recorded during the year 2005 (10/2005)and overhaul the account of the petitioner accordingly. No late payment surcharge is leviable if levied same should be waved off."
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners assailed the afore-referred decision of the learned Electric Inspector through an appeal before the learned Advisory Board Punjab, Lahore. The consumer appeared before the learned Advisory Board, Punjab and contested the appeal. The learned Advisory Board vide decision dated 24-5-2008 partially accepted the appeal in following terms:-- "For what has been stated above, the respondent is liable to pay 33% slowness with effect from March, 2006 to onward till replacement of disputed metering equipment except for 4/2006.
However, the abnormal recorded MDI of 473 KW in July, 2006 is not payable by consumer, which shall be worked out on the basis of highest MDI recorded in the year, 2005.
' For the foregoing reasons, the Advisory Board modifies the decision of Electric Inspector Lahore dated 10-7-2007 and holds that the respondent is liable to pay 33 % slowness w.e.f, March, 2006 to onward till replacement of meter with the exception of bill for 4/2006 and for 7/2006. It also held that MDI for 7/2006 shall be worked out on the basis of highest MDI recorded in the year,.
2005.
' The appeal of WAPDA is partially accepted."
5. The petitioners through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have challenged the validity of the decision made by the learned Advisory Board Punjab, Lahore.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the decisions made by the fora below are without jurisdiction; and, that the impugned decision suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence and thus liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the consumer has vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the decisions made by the fora below have been passed with lawful authority; and, that the impugned decision does not suffer from any legal infirmity and thus the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It would be appropriate to firstly deal with the objection qua the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector and the Advisory Board, Punjab. It is the case of the petitioners that the Electric Inspector lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the consumer was involved in dishonest abstraction of energy and the detection bill was prepared under section 26-A of the Electricity Act, 1910 which was immune from the scrutiny of the Electric Inspector. I am afraid this contention has no force. In the case in hand, the petitioners issued the detection bill amounting to Rs,905,144 for 151051 units and 666 KW MDI was charged on the basis of 33 % slowness of the metering equipment for the period with effect from December, 2005 to April, 2006. Admittedly, this is a case where meter became slow due to technical fault. It is now settled principle that controversy and dispute concerning the slowness of meter or other faults with the equipment falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the learned Electric Inspector under section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Colon Textile Mills Ltd. Through Factory Manager v. Chief Executive Multan Electricity Power Company Ltd. (MEPO) and 2 others (2004 SCM R 1679) has held that in case of defect in the metering equipment or any fault caused by the consumer with the intention to prevent the meter from registering the consumption of energy, the assessment made by the licensee of the charges through detection bill can be subject to scrutiny by way of reference made to the Electric Inspector by the consumer but if the metering equipment was completely by passed and through a device energy was being supplied by dishonest abstraction of electricity and question relating to the correctness of the metering equipment measuring apparatus was not involved, the charge made under section 26-A is not a dispute referable to the Electric Inspector in terms of section 26(6) or any other provision of the Electricity Act, 1910. Similar view has been taken in Multan Electric Power Ltd. v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (PLD 2006 SC 328), Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Messrs Kamal Food (Pvt.) Ltd. Okara and others (PLD 2012 SC 371). Since in the case in hand the matter relates to the charges on account of slowness of the meter, the learned Electric Inspector had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the consumer's complaint and to render decision thereon.
10. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the detection bill had been issued to the consumer due to 33 % slowness of the meter, which was fully justified, but the learned Advisory Board misread and non-read the evidence and fell in error while making the impugned decision. I asked learned counsel for the petitioners to point out the evidence which was not read or misread by the learned Advisory Board, Punjab. In response to court query he failed to point out anything in this regard. The petitioners in support of their claim produced: (i) Test Check proforma dated 11-5-2006, (ii) detection bill; and, (iii) consumption data before the learned Electric Inspector.
The Advisory Board Punjab, is a higher authority, and the decision of the learned Electric Inspector merged into its decision. The Advisory Board after appreciating the evidence available on record, particularly the above, stated documentary evidence produced by the petitioners, observed that "perusal of the consumption data reveals that the pattern of MDI recorded in the past ranges from 306 to 343 KW whereas in March, 2006 the MDI recorded is 172-KW, which makes it abundantly clear that the meter remained slow/defectivein March, 2006, whereas the units and MDI recorded in April, 2006 are 73600 KWH and 322-KW, which establishes that the meter remained OK in the month. From above it is clear that defect of make and break nature existed and in the meter which resulted into recording of MDI some time as correct and sometimes incorrect. This conclusion is also fortified from the MDI charged in July, 2006 on the basis of enhanced M.F. (40 to 60), which comes out to be 473 KW, whereas the transformer installed is of 400 KVA and technically not justified. In this view of matter, the Board observes that meter remained defective 33 % slow w.e.f, May, 2006 to onward till replacement of meter in 12/2006 except that MDI recorded by defective meter in 7/2006 was abnormally high beyond transformer capacity, hence is not payable by the consumer." In fact while deciding the matter the Advisory Board Punjab, Lahore had neither misread nor non-read the. Evidence. The impugned order shows that the learned Advisory Board thoroughly analyzed the evidence of the case, the technical aspects of the matter and, thereafter, through a well-reasoned decision recorded its conclusions, which have been reproduced above. The view taken by the statutory appellate forum particularly on a question of fact and in the absence of perversity or patent illegality as to the liability of the consumer does not call for interference by this Court. In the case of Water and Power Development Authority and 2 others v. Messrs Crown Steel Industries and 2 others (2002 YLR 2876) it was observed that the conclusion drawn by the learned Electric Inspector and the Advisory Board, Punjab based on reasons cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Similar was the view taken in the case of WAPDA through its Chairman and 2 others v. Nazir Cotton Mills Ltd. 2002 YLR 3395.
11. In view of above, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.