SHAHID KARIM, J. This constitutional petition challenges the order dated 7.3.2018 passed by the Appellate Board of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA). By the impugned order, the appeal filed by GEPCO was allowed and the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Provincial Office of Inspection, Islamabad was set aside. However, while doing so, the Board segregated the amount to be recovered from the petitioner in 35 monthly installments.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments in this Court did not deny primary facts which formed the basis of the impugned order. Also that for the period from December, 2009 to October, 2012, the petitioner was billed at MF = 80 instead of the applicable MF = 120. It is merely argued by the learned counsel that arrears could not be recovered for the period of three years for which the imposition was added in the bill for October, 2012. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any jurisdictional error on the part of NEPRA in coming to the conclusion that indeed the petitioner was liable for the payment of the arrears. It may be that the officers of GEPCO were negligent in remitting the bills for the period on the basis of applicable current Tariff but that does not absolve the liability to accrue against the petitioner and that the petitioner is oblige to discharge that liability. Clearly, there is no period of limitation provided within which GEPCO is entitled to initiate recovery proceedings and none was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of the negligence of GEPCO officials and having been unjustly enriched by that negligence ought, to reimburse the amount of arrears which have accumulated for the said period. There is no legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner to, urge that those arrears are not due from the petitioner and ought to be waived. Neither any law nor any rule was cited which would entitle the petitioner to the waiver of the amount remitted through the electricity bill for October, 2012. In fact, the Board of NEPRA has extended the benefit of staggering the amount of arrears to 35 monthly installments and this was a fair order under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. In view of the above, this petition is without merit and is dismissed.