1. ' The plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration and setting aside the order of Electrical Inspector, accounts and injunctions. The plaintiffs were originally private limited company known as Ghafoor Textile Mills Ltd. Which were later converted into a public limited company in June, 1970. Under an agreement the defendants No, 1 have been supplying electric current to the plaintiffs Mills from 1951 and charges were to be recovered accord ling to the schedule. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they were paying energy charges regularly but in October, 1968 with mala fide intention the defendant No, 2 sent supplementary bill for Rs, 51,304.81. Plaintiffs filed Suit No, 343/ 68 but the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 withdrew their bill and charged only a sum of Rs, 49.15 and the suit was accordingly withdrawn. The plaintiffs have alleged that on account of this suit the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 developed grudge against the plaintiffs and started harassing them. The plaintiffs claim that due to imposition of excise duty or the basis of production capacity from May, 1968, the plaintiffs stopped functioning of some spindles and looms which resulted in reduction of consumption of electric current and, therefore, the meter reading also decreased. This continued up to September, 1969, but the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not raise any objection to the reduced consumption. However on 17-9- 1969 the defendant No, 2 and his Superintendent came to the mill alleging that there was something wrong with the meter and they wanted to check it. The meter was shown and the seals were found intact. The defendants, however, alleged that fall in the meter reading since May, 1968 was due to tempering with the meter. This fact was discussed with the plaintiff's late Seth Ghafoor Sulaiman. During the discussion the parties were negotiating for an amicable settlement and proposal was sent for charging the plaintiffs for an extra load of 30% and to revise the bill on that basis, from 31st December, 1968. The defendants sent a bill for Rs, 1,62,073. It is alleged that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who claimed to have found the meter defective from December, 1968 did not change it. The plaintiffs allege that the alleged test was not carried out by the defendants in their presence and, therefore, the bills for Rs, 1,62,073 submitted by the defendants was challenged.
2. The plaintiffs asked the defendants to refer the matter to Electric Inspector, the defendant No, 3.
3. The Electric Inspector made inquiries and found against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have alleged that the Electric Inspector was prejudiced and biased and did not allow the plaintiffs to lead evidence or put up their case properly. They have, therefore, challenged the decision of the Electric Inspector on 23 grounds enumerated in para. 28 of the plaint. The plaintiffs have, therefore, prayed as follows :-
(a) Honourable Court would be pleased to declare that the order of defendant No, 3, dated 27-8- 1972 Annexure "Z" dismissing the application of the plaintiffs is illegal, void, without jurisdiction, biased, improper and erroneous and of no legal effect whatsoever and inoperative against the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to take any action to recover the above amount on the basis of this impugned order.
(b) Honourable Court would be pleased to declare that the supplementary Bills, dated 16-11-1970 Annexures "F, F-1 and F-2" by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 demanding a sum of Rs, 1,62,073 from the plaintiffs are without lawful authority, illegal, void, mala fide, improper and erroneous and inoperative against the plaintiffs and the defendants are not entitled to recover that money from the plaintiffs.
4. (c)That this Honourable Court would be pleased to direct that accounts be taken from the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 of the amounts paid by the plaintiffs. Awards electric charges for meter No, AP-4245 of the old Mill and declare and putting the accounts and taken that no money is due from the plaintiffs to defendants from original bills or by way of supplementary bills except certain instalments as agreed to by both the parties.
(d) That this Honourable Court would be pleased to restrain and prohibit defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by themselves or through their agents and subordinates directly or indirectly from giving effect to the impugned order and bills of taking any action whatsoever to demand, collect and recover in any manner whatsoever, the amount of Rs, 1,62,073 as mentioned in their bills Annexures "F", "F-1" and "F-2" dated 16-11-1972.
5. (e)Any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(f) Costs of this suit.
6. ' The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have filed written 'statement in which they denied the plaintiff's right to ask for accounts. It has been pleaded that the supplementary bill in respect of which Suit No, 343/68 was filed was amicably settled and it has no reference to the present controversy. It has been denied that the defendants 1 and 2 bear grudge against the plaintiffs or that the lower consumption was recorded as some spindles and looms were lying idle. It was due to tampering with the meter. On inspection of the premises of the plaintiffs on 18-9-1969 cotton was found at the bottom current coil of the meter which was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs manager and electrician. The plaintiffs, therefore, wanted to settle the matter amicably and proposed for settlement. However, later they referred the matter to Electric Inspector. The plaintiffs had first agreed to settle the matter at 30% of the slowness of the meter but later on they wriggled out of it. It has been stated that the plaintiffs never disputed the fact of tampering with the meter and this plea was raised for the first time when supplementary bills were presented to them. It has been pleaded that the plaintiffs tried to confuse the issues and deliberately protracted the proceedings before the' Electric Inspector. However, after hearing both the parties the Electric Inspector has given his decision which is valid and legal. On these facts the plaintiff's claim has been denied.
7. ' The defendant No, 3 has also filed his written statement. The allegations made against the defendant No, 3 have been denied that he had asked the plaintiffs to negotiate with the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 privately or that the defendant No, 3 was biased. He has pleaded that plaintiff bad been given ample opportunity and time top state their case to him and they had produced documents and submitted arguments in writing. It denied that no opportunity was given to the plaintiffs and the objections raised by the plaintiffs are illegal without any force and the order is proper and legal. On the basis of these pleadings the following issues were framed :-
(1) Have the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 been acting amicably and mala finely against the plaintiffs since October 1969 for reasons given in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5?
8. Have the plaintiffs been paying their bills of Meter No, 4245 regularly?
(3) Did the plaintiffs reduce their spindles and looms on account of the imposition of capacity tax and labour troubles from May, 1968?
(4) Was the fall in the consumption due to the tampering of the meter as alleged by defendants Nos. 1 and 2?
(5) Was the meter examined by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on 18-9-1969 in the presence of Director/Manager and Electrician of the plaintiffs and was it found in their presence that the seals on the meter were not original and not genuine and initiation as alleged by the defendants 1 and 2 in para. 17 of their written statement?
(6) Was any cotton found on the disk at the bottom of the coil of the meter at the above inspection at the premises of the plaintiffs on 18-9-1969 and was the above tampering brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs Director, Manager and Electrician?
(7) Why was the matter not reported to the police by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. If not what is the effect?
(8) Was the meter tested about the percentage of slowness in the presence of the plaintiffs or their Manager and Electrician?
(9) Was it only question of the percentage of the slowness of the meter which was contested by the plaintiffs as alleged in para. 10 of the written statement of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, or was it the whole question of alleged tampering with the meter which was in dispute?
(10) Have the alleged non-genuine and imitation seals been preserved by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 if not, what is the effect?
(11) Was the matter delayed by the defendants No, 1 and for ulterior motives to knock out undue advantage from the plaintiffs?
(12) Was the connection of the Meter No, 4245 disconnected on 0-12-1970 illegally and mala fidely by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to pressurise and coerce the plaintiffs and daily readings taken from December, 1969 for the same motive?
(13) Are the defendants entitled to transfer the current dues of meter No, 4245 to Meter No, 54954 as alleged by them in para. 16 of their written statement or has this been mala fidely one as alleged by the plaintiffs to enable them to disconnect Meter No, 54954 of the new mill which under law they cannot do?
(14) Is the amount of Rs, 1,62,073 as claimed in the supplementary bill by. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 correct and legal or has this demand been made mala fidely, iltegally and is unwarranted, improper, erroneous and void as alleged by the plaintiffs?
(15) Is the impugned order of defendant No, 3 biased on account of mala fide as alleged by the plaintiffs?
(16) Is the order of defendant No, 3 mala fide, biased, illegal, without ' lawful authority, null and void, improper and erroneous, inoperative as alleged by the plaintiffs?
(17) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to ask for accounts and the defendants are liable to render accounts to the plaintiffs?
(18) Whether plaintiff can seek any relief in respect of Meter No, 54954?
(19) Whether the impugned order of defendant No, 3 relates to Meter No, 4245 and if so what is its effect?
(20) What should the deoree be?
9. ' At the outset it may be mentioned that Issues Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 have not been pressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
10. ' At the time of final hearing none of the defendants or their Advocates appeared and, therefore, the matter proceeded against them in their absence and the statement of plaintiff's witness was recorded. In the statement made by Haroon Katnani who was a director of the company at the material time, he has stated that regular bills of the defendant No, 1 were being paid. There was a substation inside the factory premises in which the meter was installed which was in the control and possession of the defendants No,
1. It has been stated that in 1968 more than 60% looms and spindles had been dismantled. In support of this he has produced a letter, dated 4-6-1972 addressed to the Electric Inspector. He has also stated that gradually the production had decreased between 1-7-1968 to 1-9-1970 which was recorded in the production register. He has stated that defendants No, 1 have wrongly alleged that the plaintiffs had tampered with the meter.
11. When they removed it from the substation no test was carried out before them nor the meter was originally referred to the Electric Inspector. He has produced bunch of correspondence on which reliance has been placed. He has stated that the defendant No, 1 had sent supplementary bills 8 months after the removal of the meter payment of which was refused by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have thus restricted the evidence to the fact how the production was reduced during the relevant period and that the meter was taken away and was not examined in the presence of their witnesses. The plaintiffs have not led any evidence nor stated a word against the order passed by the Electric Inspector. Now in the background of this scanty evidence the issues will be examined.
12. Issue No, 1.-The plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that first a claim for Rs, 51,304.81 was made by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 but when the plaintiffs filed a suit it was reduced to Rs, 49.15 and paid by the plaintiffs. From these facts the plaintiffs infer that the subsequent action taken by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was mala fide. This instance by itself is not sufficient to prove mala fide or enmity on the part of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 more particularly because the plaintiffs in their evidence have not stated or alleged any mala fides on the part of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In order to prove mala fides the plaintiffs should have produced cogent and satisfactory evidence. By mere alleging in the plaint it is not properly established. In these circumstances my finding on this issue is in the negative.
13. Issue No, 2,-There is no evidence to the contrary. The only dispute in the suit is that Meter No, 4245 was tampered with by the plaintiffs and, therefore, the bills sent to the plaintiffs were incorrect. The finding is, that the payments were made by the plaintiffs on the basis of bills which were found to be incorrect as discussed below.
14. Issues Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14.-These issues can be taken together. The plaintiffs have alleged that the sub-station in which the meter was installed was in the possession of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and was under their lock and key. The plaintiffs did not have any access to it. It has also alleged that when the defendants enquired about the reduced consumption it was explained that during March and May, 1971 number of spindles were reduced and, therefore, there was less consumption. It was also stated that due to labour unrest in the Site area the mills were closed. The defendant s in the correspondence have stated that cotton was found on the disc at the bottom current coil of the meter. This tempering was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs who tried to settle the matter by negotiation but since the negotiations failed the matter was referred to the Electric Inspector. It may be pointed out that under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 where any difference or dispute arises whether the meter is correct or not the matter shall be decided upon the application of either party by an Electric Inspector or by competent person specially appointed by the Provincial Government in this behalf. It further provides that where the meter has in the opinion of such Inspector or person ceased to be correct such Inspector or person shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during such time as the meter shall not in the opinion of the Inspector- have been correct. Where the matter has been decided by the Inspector his decision shall be final. It was under this provision that both the parties had referred their matter to defendant No,
3. The defendant No, 3, bard the parties and arguments were also addressed on behalf of the parties. All the contentions that have been raised by the plaintiffs in the plaint and the documents produced in Court was also produced before the defendant No,3 and ultimately the defendant No, 3 gave his decision on 27-9-1972. The decision is annexed with the plaint as Annexure "Z". It is this decision which in fact has been challenged by the plaintiffs.
15. However, in the oral evidence no grievance has been made against this decision. In these circumstances it can only be presumed that perhaps the plaintiffs were relying on the documents that have been produced to assail the decision of defendant No,
3. But strangely enough the learned counsel for the plaintiffs at the time of arguments did not press Issues Nos. 15 & 16. Both these issues relate to the decision by defendant No,
3. It therefore follows that the plaintiffs do not wish to challenge the decision. Now in this background it has to be seen whether the plaintiffs could challenge the bill submitted by the defendants No, 1 which has been held by defendant No, 3 to be proper. A perusal of the decision of the defendant No, 3 which though not produced in evidence has been filed as an annexure to the plaint and forms part thereof, gives the impression that it is an exhaustive and well considered decision in which all the points and evidence of the parties have been considered. Thus, the letters and the documents produced by the plaintiff in Court particulaly relating to the reduction in production, closure of the mill and alleged checking of the meter by defendents No, 1 have been thoroughly considered by the defendant No, 3 and decision has been given to the effect that the plaintiffs had tampered with the meter which bad been slowed down by them and, therefore, the facts that there had been closure of the mill or some spindles were not in operation did not make any difference and the demand made by the defendants No, 1 was correct. The Electric Inspector is an authority under the Electricit Act, 1910 whose decision on such disputes has been final. In the absence of any challenge to this decision particularly when issues relating to the legality of that decision have not been pressed it should be taken to be correct and binding on the parties. If any Act provides a machinery for settlement of dispute arising under it and makes it final then such decision if made within the provision of law and without violating the principles of natural justice will be final and no interference can be made to it. The defendant No, 3 has discussed the evidence and contentions of the parties and has taken into consideration almost all the points raised by the plaintiffs. This decisions cannot be termed as illegal, perverse or absurd. From the decision it seems E that the parties were heard. In view of this discussion my finding is that the plaintiff cannot challenge-the correctness of the demand and bill submitted by the defendants No, 1 in respect of which decision has been given under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910.
16. Issues Nos. 15 to 19 were not pressed.
17. Issue No, 20../i,-In view of my finding that the order of defendant No, 3 holding the supplementary bill of defendants No, 1 for Rs, 1,62,073 to b valid, proper and correct, and the plaintiffs having failed to challenge or that order set aside, they are not entitled to any relief.
18. ' The suit is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.