MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETH I, J.--- Through instant petition, petitioner has sought direction for respondents for restoration of its electricity connection with the following prayer:--- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the impugned acts and omissions of the respondents disconnecting electricity despite the fact that no amounts are outstanding against the Petitioner Company and the impugned order dated 31.05.2018 maintaining the plea that the Petitioner Company is a sister concern of Acro Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited which has defaulted to pay the due bills, may kindly be declared as illegal, unlawful, corum non judice and void ab initio and are be set aside. It is further prayed that a direction may kindly be given to respondent No. 2 to forthwith restore the electricity supply and re-energize the meter within time stipulated by the Hon'ble Court."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submit s that no dues/ arrears of electricity are outstanding against petitioner , however , electricity supply of petitioner has been disconnected with the plea that petitioner is sister concern of Acro Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, which has allegedly committed some default. He adds that impugned disconnection is absolutely illegal and without lawful justification. He further submits that issue to this extent has already been settled by this Court in Tanvir Rasool Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited through Director v.
MAPCO through Chief Executive and another (2002 CLD 157 ).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for, respondent-MEPCO defends the impugned actions of respondents and submits that no illegality has been committed by respondents in, the matter of disconnection of electricity supply of petitioner .
4. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
5. It is established from the record that Acro Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited (formerly known as Amjad Taxtile Mills Limited) and petitioner-company namely Acro Textile Mills. Limited (amalgamation/merger of Anwar Cotton Mills Limited and Aslam Industries (Priva te) Limited). are two separate legal entities incorporated by Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan with different registration numbers. Moreover , the shareholding and Board of Directors of both the companies are not the same as is evident from Form A and Form 29, available on record. The companies are having different NTN numbers, issued by Federal Board of Revenue. Thus, the default committed by Acro Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited, being a distinct entity , cannot be attributed to petitioner-company . Even otherwise, a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is juristic legal person distinct from its shareholders and Board of Directors.
6. Needless to say that mischief of Sectio n 24(1) of the Electricity Act, 1910 could only be invoked if two separate meters are installed but in the same name. Electricity meters/accounts of two different persons/entities cannot be clubbed together for the purposes of said provisions of law. This issue has already been laid to rest by this Court in the case of Tanvir Rasool Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited supra.- The operative part of the observations is reproduced hereunder .--- "6.... It is thus clear that two meters were obtained and functioning in two distinct names, who cannot be held to be one `consumer' of WAPDA. They were two separate and independent consumers for all practical purposes including Section 24 of the Electricity Act. The mischief of Section 24(1) of Electri city Act could only be invoked if two separate meters installed at different premises were in the 'same name'. Section 24(1) supra clearly refers to distinction of names. Electricity meters/accounts in the name of two different distinct legal persons or entities, therefore, cannot be clubbed together for the purposes of Section 24 of the Electricity Act. Furthermore, natural persons, - who are partners of a firm, can also independently be shareholders or Directors of a Company . They cannot be burdened with the personality of the Company to be responsible for its liabilities and vice versa. As such, respondents could not under law disconn ect petitioner -company's electricity meter for the liabilities of a firm whose partners may be the shareholders of the Company as well. "
7. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed and impugned action of disconnecting electricity meter/supply of petitioner is declared to be illegal and without lawful authority . Respondents are directed to restore electricity connection of petitioner immediately , however , subject to payment of dues by petitioner , if any outstanding.