MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, J.---This single order shall decide the instant petition as well as Writ Petitions Nos.812, 5119, 1637, 11039, 13470, 13908, 14895, 16677, 18195, 19762, 19763, 19882, 19916, 29335 and 39623 of 2015, as all these petitions carry similar questions of fact and law.
2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 17th of February, 2015 whereby National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred as NEPRA) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on account of limitation.
3. The facts in precision necessary for adjudication of instant petition are that respondent No,3 filed a petition under section 38 of Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1997) and under sections 24(2) and 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 before the Provincial Office of Inspection/Electric Inspector challenging the electricity bill issued by the petitioner in excess of actual consumption. The petition was resisted by the Department, however, the same was allowed vide decision dated 31st of March, 2014. The decision of the Provincial Office of Inspection/Electric Inspector was challenged through an appeal before the Appellate Board of NEPRA. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 17th of February, 2015, hence this petition.
4. Mehr Shahid Mahmood, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petition before the Electric Inspector was filed on 19-7-2013 and by virtue of section 26(6) of The Electricity Act, 1910, he was obliged to decide the same within a period of 90 days. Learned counsel added that the decision was rendered after the statutory period which renders the decision of Electric Inspector void. Learned counsel contended that the appeal under section 38 of Act, 1997 was to be filed within 30 days from the receipt of the order and as the order was not sent by the Provincial Office of Inspection/Electric Inspector, so, the appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be held barred by time. Reliance is placed on the case of FESCO through Chief Executive Officer and 3 others v. Al-Murtaza Cotton Factory, through Director and 2 others (2015 M LD 1307).
' Mr. Saeed Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate representing the petitioner in W. Ps. Nos.11039 and .39623 of 2015 while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are two provisions in the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 which deals with the appeal and the case of the petitioner is duly covered under section 38(3) of the Act, thus the appeal cannot be dismissed on account of limitation.
' Dr. Muhammad Irtiza Awan, Advocate for petitioner in W.Ps. Nos. 13908, 18195, 19762 and 19763 of 2015 also adopted the same arguments.
5. Conversely, Mr. Umer Sharif, Advocate representing NEPRA while refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings were conducted by the Provincial Office of Inspection in terms of section 38 of Act, 1997 which does not provide any specific period for decision by the said Office, so the decision of the Provincial Office of Inspections/Electric Inspector cannot be termed as void or illegal on this score alone. He added that the procedure before the Provincial Office of Inspection is to be regulated by the Punjab (Establishment and Powers of Office of Inspection) Order, 2005 and as per Article 9 of the said Order, the decision is to be rendered within 120 days of filing of the complaint. Learned Legal Advisor contended that the appeal was barred by time before the Authority and it was rightly dismissed. He next contended that the appeal before the Advisory Board is to be filed in terms of Article 10 of the Punjab (Establishment and Powers of Office of Inspection) Order, 2005 which provides 30 days for filing of the same from the date of decision of the Provincial Office of Inspection.
' Learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No, 1.
' Ch. Muhammad Imran Bhatti, Advocate representing private respondents in W.P. Nos. 812, 1637, 11039, 14895, 16172 and 19882 of 2015 while resisting the petitions contended that the same are hit by laches and the same are not maintainable. He added that the instant petition is not filed by all the aggrieved persons.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Law Officer and learned counsel for the private respondents, I have also perused the record in order to appreciate the respective contentions raised by both the sides. The moot question involved in the instant petition as well as connected petitions pertains to the applicability of section 38 of The Act, 1997.
7. While adverting to the proposition, it would be advantageous to examine the relevant provisions relating to filing of appeal, challenging the decision of Provincial Office of Inspection/Electric Inspector. The Act, 1997 was amended by virtue of Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Amendment Act (XVIII of 2011) and by virtue of Amended Act, two provisions were added in the Act of 1997 which deals with the right of appeal. In the first instance, section 12-A was inserted in the Act, 1997 which reads as under:--- "12-A. Appeal.---Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Single Member of the Authority or, as the case may be, Tribunal established under section 11 may, within thirty days of the decision or order, prefer an appeal to the Authority in the prescribed manner and the Authority shall decide such appeal within sixty days." (underlining is mine for emphasis).
' In addition to the above, subsection (3) was added to the existing section 38 of the Act, 1997 in the following words:--- "(3) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Provincial Office of Inspection may, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the Authority in the prescribed manner and the Authority shall decide such appeal within sixty days." (underlining is mine for emphasis).
' While analyzing the above referred provision jointly, it can safely be observed that the remedy of appeal provided under section 12-A restricts to the decision or order of the single Member of the Authority or the Tribunal established under section 11 whereas the appeal provided under subsection (3) of section 38 of Act, 1997 relates to the decision or order of the Provincial Office of Inspection which is to be filed within 30 days from the receipt of the order to the Authority in the prescribed manner.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that an appeal against the decision of the Provincial Office of Inspections/Electric Inspector is to be regulated by Article 10 of the Punjab (Establishment and Powers of Office of Inspection) Order, 2005 is misconceived. As Article 10 of the said Order provides the remedy of appeal to an aggrieved person against the final order made by the office of Inspections before the Government or if the Government, by general or special order, so directs, to the Advisory Board constituted under section 35 of the Electricity Act, 1910, within 30 days, and the decision of the Government or advisory board, as the case may be shall be final in this regard.
9. As already observed that the proceedings in the instant matters were admittedly conducted under the Act, 1997, so no pick and choose can be made for determining the manner and forum of appeal. The appeal against the decision of Provincial Office of Inspection/Electric Inspector appointed in terms of section 38(1) of Act, 1997 would be governed under the same Act. The question as to how the period of limitation for the purpose of filing an appeal against the decision or order of the Provincial Office of Inspection/ Electric Inspector can be calculated is though available in subsection (3) of section 38 of the Act, 1997 wherein it is specifically mentioned that an appeal against the decision or order of the Provincial Office of Inspection may be preferred within 30 days of the receipt of the order. However, if at all any ambiguity arises that can be resolved while referring to The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Procedure for filing appeal before the Authority) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred as Regulations 2012. Regulation 3 postulates that any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the single Member of the Authority or Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Act or from the decision given by the Provincial Office of Inspection/Electric Inspector may, within 30 days of the order or decision file an appeal before the Authority.
10. As already noted herein above that section 12-A provides the remedy of appeal against the decision or order of single Member of the Authority or the Tribunal established under section 11 of the Act, 1997, so, this leaves no ambiguity that the appeal against the decision or order of the Tribunal shall be filed within 30 days of such decision or order. So far decision of Electric Inspector/Provincial Office of Inspection appointed under section 38 of the Act, 1997 is concerned that can only be assailed by way of appeal in terms of section 38(3) of the Act, 1997. Regulation 4 Regulations, 2012 provides a mechanism for calculation of period of limitation for filing appeal which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:--- "4. Limitation for filing appeal.---
(1) Every appeal shall be filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order against which the appeal is preferred is received by the appellant: ' Provided that the Authority may, upon an application filed in this behalf, entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period.
(2) Subject to anything contrary on the record the copy of the order against which an appeal is filed shall be presumed to have been received by the appellant if.
(a) sent by courier, three days following the day it is dispatched by the Receipt and issue department of the Authority;
(b) sent by registered post, seven days following the date it is mailed by the Receipt and issue department of the Authority; and
(c) sent by hand delivery, on production of the receipt showing the date it is served on the appellant. "
Similar provisions are also embodied in the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 in the shape of Rule 21, which reads as under:- ' M. (1) The Tribunal shall, after the order is signed cause certified copies thereof to be sent under registered cover to the parties concerned and shall deliver a copy to the Secretary, Establishment Division [and the Solicitor, Law Division].
(2) Any party to the appeal may obtain additional copies of the order on payment of such legal fees as the Tribunal may from time to time fix. ] ' It is quite obvious from Regulation 4 that the period of limitation will start from the receipt of the copy of the decision or the order by the aggrieved person which is sent to him by the Provincial Office of Inspections/Electric Inspector through any mode prescribed in sub-Regulation (2) (a) to
(c) of Regulation 4.
11. So far contention of learned counsel for the private respondents that petitions are hit by laches, suffice to observe that the principle of laches cannot be equated with the limitation. The effect of delay in filing the constitutional petition is to be determined on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. Even otherwise, laches cannot be pleaded against an order which apparently is illegal and unlawful. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that principle of laches will have no adverse effect to the instant as well as connected petitions.
12. The above discussion leads me to irresistible conclusion that the Provincial Office of Inspections/Electric Inspector is bound to transmit the copy of order to the aggrieved person through the modes provided under Regulation 4 of the Regulation 2012 and in this way, the period of limitation for filing an appeal in terms of subsection (3) of section 38 will be calculated from the date of receipt of order.
13. In this backdrop, I am of the considered view that the Authority has committed an illegality while dismissing the appeals on account of limitation by way of impugned order which is completely in oblivion of the above referred provision of law. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the order dated 17th of February, 2015 is set aside being illegal and unlawful and the matter is remitted back to the Authority for decision afresh in accordance with law.