MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, J.----The instant petition directed against the order 15th of May, 2015 passed by the Appellate Board National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision dated 03rd of October, 2014 passed by the Regional Office of Electric Inspector, Faisalabad, was dismissed.
2. Precisely the facts necessary for adjudication of instant petition are that the petitioner is a registered consumer of respondents Nos,3 to 7 having old account No,22-3132-72037357-U, Tariff B-1, S/Load 18.00-KW new account No,27-13132-6204020-U since 22nd of December, 2004. The petitioner is running a business of embroidery in the premises. where the electric meter is installed.
In the year 2007 a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondents Nos,3 to 7 on account of issuance of a detection bill amounting to Rs,2,05,392/-. The petitioner being aggrieved from the said action of the respondents filed a complaint before respondent No,6 who refused to attend the grievance of the petitioner and imposed a condition to deposit 40% of the disputed amount. The petitioner deposited the said amount and protested upon which the matter was placed before the Review Committee, however the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 31st of March, 2008 and the petitioner was directed to deposit the remaining amount in three equal installments. The petitioner then filed a complaint before the Electric Inspector on 28th of February, 2013 agitating his grievance, however the complaint was dismissed by way of order dated 03rd of October, 2014. The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the decision of the Electric Inspector filed an appeal before the Appellate Board National Electric Power Regulatory Authority but the appeal was also dismissed by way of order dated 15th of May, 2015.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Electric Inspector dismissed the complaint of the petitioner on the sole ground that it is barred by time. He added that the case of the petitioner was covered under Article 120 of The Limitation Act, 1908 which provides limitation for six years. Learned counsel contended that the Appellate Board has also committed an illegality by way of impugned order, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
4. Conversely, M. Umar Sharif, Advocate for the respondent No,1 defended the impugned orders and submitted that Article 120 of The Limitation Act, 1908 is not attracted to the case of the petitioner. Mr. Shahid Mehmood Mehar, Advocate representing respondents Nos,3 to 7 also adopted the same arguments.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The moot question requiring determination by this Court revolves around the fact that what is the period of limitation for filing a complaint before Electric Inspector in terms of provisions contained in The Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred as "The Act, 1910") and The Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred as "The Act, 1997")?
7. Prior to promulgation of "The Act, 1997", all the complaints before the Electric Inspector were to be filed in terms of section 26 of "The Act, 1910". It is an admitted fact that neither "The Act, 1910" nor "The Act, 1997" provides any period of limitation for filing a complaint under the said statutes before the Electric Inspector. The complaints before the Electric Inspector are still to he entertained and" adjudicated in terms of section 26 of "The Act, 1910". For the case in hand, subsection (6) of section 26 of the Act ibid is more relevant which is reproduced below :- "26. Meters. (1) .................
(1).....................
(2)......................
(3).............................
(4) ..................
(5) ......................
(6) Where any difference or dispute arises between a licensee and a consumer as to whether any meter, matimum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus is or in 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 and opportunity of being heard, and where the meter, maximum demand indicator or other measuring apparatus has, in the opinion of an 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: Provided that, before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electric Inspector under this subsection, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do.
(7) ...................
It is quite obvious from the above referred provision of law that for filing a complaint before the Electric Inspector, no period is prescribed, however the Electric Inspector is bound to decide the matter in dispute within a period of ninety day from the date of receipt of application after affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties. From the bare reading of subsection (6) of section 26 of "The Act, 1910", it is evident that by fixing the period of ninety days for the final decision, the intent of legislature was very clear to push the Electric Inspector to decide the matter in dispute at the earliest and well before the expiry of ninety days. Though no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a complaint before the Electric Inspector but it can easily be gathered from the language of subsection (6) of section 26 of "The Act, 1910" that the party aggrieved must approach the Electric Inspector well within reasonable time.
8. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Article 120 of The Limitation Act, 1908 applies for the said purpose is ill-founded as the said provision of law is only applicable to the suits as is evident from the bare reading of the said Article. The petitioner at the most can invoke Article 181 of The Limitation Act, 1908 which is residuary provision and caters the issue of limitation where no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule of The Limitation Act, 1908 or under section 48 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908). Article 181 of The Limitation Act, 1908 prescribes the period of three years for filing an application when the right to apply accrues. The dispute between the parties arose in the year 2007 and initially the complaint was decided on 31st of March, 2008. The petitioner remained mum and then filed the complaint before the Electric Inspector on 28th of February, 2013 after lapse of about five years which was hopelessly barred by time. The decisions of Electric Inspector as well as the Appellate Board are thus based on proper reasoning and no illegality is committed by any of the foras below. The petitioner even deposited the detection bill as per decision of the review committee in installments which ended in March, 2009. The petitioner has failed to provide any lawful justification for filing a complaint with an inordinate delay of five years before the Electric Inspector.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.