1. Through this petition, the petitioners have impugned orders dated 21.6.2016 and 10.1.2017 issued by Respondents No, 2 and 3.
2. 2.The basic grievance of the petitioners is that Respondent No, 3 has issued its order without considering the facts of the case, without considering any documents and without recording of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Respondent No, 1 challenged the bill for the months of May and June 2015 before Respondent No, 2, Provincial Office of Inspection/ Electric Inspector to Government of Punjab, Gujranwala. During the pendency of the case, Respondent No, 1 issued an affidavit that he will withdraw his petition before Respondent No, 1 that he will pay the bill as required by the petitioners and in this regard, he also submitted an affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Respondent No, 2 did not rely upon the affidavit and instead proceed with the merits of the case. Even on the merits of the case, a liability has been imposed on the petitioners which liability is contrary to the record. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners have been directed to refund certain amounts to Respondent No, 1 which refund is not made out and is contrary to the record.
3. 3.The record shows that Respondent No, 1 filed a complaint before Respondent No, 2 in relation to its bill for the months of April, May and June 2015. It was the case of Respondent No, 1 that the meter was defective and that the metering equipment was slow. The record also shows that the petitioners do not deny the fact that display of the meter was not functional for the disputed months and that Respondent No, 1 was charged on estimation based on the consumption of corresponding months of the previous year. Respondent No, 2 heard the matter, considered various different documents including the test reports with respect to the meter and while relying on the admission of the petitioners that the display of the impugned meter and electromechanical backup meter was not functional and since April 2015, directed that an estimated bill be issued based on the readings of the corresponding months for the previous year. Respondent No, 2 found that the bill issued was not based on actual consumption but instead 100020 units were estimated as consumption. Furthermore for the disputed period no detection bill was issued and that the impugned meter was removed by Respondents themselves without issuing a detection bill. It was also stated that the impugned meter was not produced before Respondent No, 2, hence based on the consumption data, it was found that an incorrect bill had been issued to Respondent No, 1.
4. Respondent No, 2 thereafter directed that the impugned bills be withdrawn, revised bills for the disputed months be issued based on the consumption recorded in the corresponding months of the previous year. This decision was upheld by Respondent No, 3, Appellate Board & National Electric Power Regulatory Authority who also found that the consumption relied upon by the petitioner is not correct as it is not made out from the record. The petitioners are aggrieved by these orders even though it is their own case that the bill is made on the estimation of the corresponding months for the previous years.
5. 4.Under the circumstances, since this matter has been looked into by Respondent No, 2 and upheld by Respondent No, 3, no illegality has been made out. The matter has been properly looked at great detail by both the Respondents after going through the record before them and decided the matter based on the available record. The petitioners have failed to point out any illegality against the impugned orders especially since it is admitted that the meter was faulty for the disputed months.
6. 5.In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is dismissed in limine.