This writ petition calls into question order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the appellate board of National Electric Power Regulatory Authority ( NEPRA ) setting aside the decision of the Of fice of Provincial Inspection.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that a detection bill was served seen Respondent No. 1 for four months amounting to Rs. 380,327/-. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the Office of Provincial Inspection which dismissed the complaint through order dated 27.03.2017 holding that the amount of detection bill of four months was justified. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the appellate board of NEPRA. This appeal was allowed through order dated 18.04.2 018 and the petitioner was held entitled to receive detection bill for only two months i.e. April and May , 2016.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the detection bill was issued to Respondent No. 1 on the basis of actual reading of the electricity meter and as such the appellate board erred in setting aside of the order of Office of Provincial Inspection. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and NEPRA supp orted the order passed by the appellate board.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. The Office of Provincial Inspection passed a non-speaking order as he did not offer any reason whatsoever for dismissing the complaint of Respondent No. 1. The appellate board, on the other hand, relied upon clause 4.4(e) of the Consumer Service Manual according to which the petitioner could charge the consumer maximum for two billing cycles on account of slowness of the electricity meter . Since the detection bill issued to Respondent No. 1 was for a period of four months, it was found to be in violation of clause 4.4(e) of Consumer Service Manual. The appellate board also compared the data of Respondent No. 1 with the previous year and came to the conclusion the electricity meter slowed in the months of April and May, 2016. Resultantly , the findings of Office of Provincial Inspection were set aside and it was held that Respondent No. 1 could only be charged detection bill for slowness of meter for the months of April and May , 2016.
6. This Court is in agreement with the findings of the appellate board of NEPRA which have been rendered in accordance with the terms of the Consumer Service Manual. This writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.