' NAIMUDDIN, J.-By this Constitution petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, the petitioner has questioned the discontinuance of the supply of energy to his premises bearing plots Nos. 41 to 69, Bijli Nagar, Orangi Town, Karachi, and prayed for a direction to restore the supply of power and electricity to the above referred premises through Meter Nos. AL-62606 and Al-558298. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as follows :-
2. The petitioner applied to the respondent for an electric connection for supply of power for running an industry and for supply of electricity for lights at his premises bearing Plots Nos. 41 to 60, Bijli Nagar, Orangi Town, Karachi. On 27th March, 1982, the employees of the respondent after due processing of the application, deposit of security and other charges by the petitioner and issuance of Fitness Certificate by the Electric Inspector, Government of Sind for Karachi Region, installed Meters No, AP-062606 and Al-558298 for power and electricity respectively.
3. The petitioner paid the energy charges in respect of the said two meters upto April, 1983, which fact is evident by the bills showing the receipt or payment as per Annexures "C" to "L" to the petitioner.
4. However, on 3rd June, 1982, the respondent without any prior notice and assigning any reason disconnected the power and electricity supply through Meter Nos. AP-062606 and AL-558298 respectively, although no bill for power and electricity nor any demand for any other dues in respect of energy through the said meters had remained unpaid or unsatisfied by the petitioner.
5. This action of the respondent led the petitioner to personally contact the Controller of Billing of the respondent and protested against the unlawful disconnection of the supply of energy. The Controller told the petitioner that this action was taken against him because he had failed to pay the supplementary bills issued to him in respect of other connection through other meters and had filed case against the K. E. S. C. Challenging the validity of the said supplementary bills. The Controller refused to restore the supply of power and electricity.
6. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
7. We have heard Mr. Munawwar Abbas Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S. M. Nurul Hasan Advocate for the respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent in disconnecting the supply of energy to the petitioner's premises without any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing is without lawful authority.
9. The respondent's main case is contained in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed on their behalf by S. M. Navy which reads as follows "6. That the petitioner got Meter No, AP-58673 (AL-320156) for running a small industry of manufacturing artificial silk cloth with a power load of 37 K. W. But he started selling electricity to a number of small factories owned and established by his tenants in the about 26 sheds and started consuming an estimated load of about 100 K. W. And to conceal this, the petitioner tempered with the Meter to cause wrongful loss to respondent Corporation and wrongful gain to himself. The petitioner has to pay an amount of about Rs, 9,30,088.80 on account of supplementary bill. In order to avoid payment of the said dues, the petitioner by making false representation and concealing the correct facts, was successful in obtaining two power meters in the premises in question from the Construction and Meter Departments of the respondent-Corporation. When it was found that the said two power Meters (and light meters) were unauthorisedly supplying energy to disconnected Consumer No, AP-58673 (AL-32016), the same were accordingly disconnected. The petitioner and his wife who is petitioner in connected C. P. No, 500 of 1983 cannot be allowed to sell electricity through their meters to about 26 sheds in which different owners are running their factories. Under the law the respondent is authorised to discontinue the energy supply if the owner or occupier makes any alteration of, or addition to, electric wires fittings, works or apparatus in such premises. Besides I am advised that the conduct of the said two petitioners in giving/supplying energy to the defaulter consumer who owns more than nine lacs of rupees is such that they are not entitled for any equitable relief".
10. It is contended by Mr. Noorul Hassan that no notice or opportunity of hearing was necessary on the facts and circumstances of the case.
This contention is in complete disregard of the well-established principle of audi alteram partem which means that no one should be dealt to hi material disadvantage or deprived of his liberty or property without having an opportunity of being heard and making his defence. The rule is no confined to proceedings before Court but extends to all proceedings, by whomsoever held, which may affect the person or property or other right o the parties concerned in the dispute. As a just decision in such controversies is possible only if the parties are given the opportunity of being heard, there can be as regards the right of hearing, no difference between proceedings which are strictly judicial and those which are in the nature of a judicial proceeding though administrative in form. Further, such a provision must be read in each and every statute unless the application of the principle is excluded by specific provisions in the statute. In the present case, the'. Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter called the Act). But there is no such provision therein.
' On the contrary, notice is specifically required to be given when electric supply is to be disconnected for non-payment of charges for energy or any other dues under section 24 of the Act, which provides as follows :- "24.-Discontinuance of supply of consumer's neglecting to pay Charge.
(1) Where any person neglects to pay charges for energy of any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut of the supply and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line of other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and re-connecting the supply, are paid, but no longer.
(2) Where any difference or dispute had been referred under this Act to an Electric Inspector before notice as aforesaid has been given by the licensee the licensee shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section until the Inspector has given his decision :
(3) Provided that the prohibition contained in this subsection shall not apply in any case in which the licensee has made a request in writing to the consumer for a deposit with the Electric Inspector of the amount of the licensee's charges or other sums in dispute or for the deposit of the licensee's further charges energy as they accrue, and the consumer has failed to comply with such request."
11. We have not been shown any provisions in Act or in the Contract, if any, between the parties nor has any reliance been placed on any such provisions where under supply of energy could be disconnected without giving notice for allegedly supplying electricity to any other premises, or tenants.
12. It is contended by Mr. Noor-ul-Hassan that alternative is available to the petitioner, and therefore, the petition is not maintainable.
In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner could file a suit as he has done in respect of another meter and could also refer the dispute under section 24 of the Act to the Electric Inspector.
In reply it may be stated that in the circumstances of the present case, the suit would not have been an efficacious or expeditious remedy in this case. The question of referring the dispute under section 24 of the Act does not arise in this case for no dispute arose in respect of any dues concerning the meters in the petition, as the other suit has not been decided as yet and order refusing temporary injunction is the subject-matter of a revision application which it is stated, is pending in this Court. Therefore, the contention is without any force.
13. Accordingly, we declare that the action of the discontinuance of supply of energy by the respondent is without lawful authority and direr the respondent to restore the supply of energy to the premises of the petitioner immediately on service of this order.
14. We may however, record that this will not preclude the respondent from taking any action in future after giving notice and in accordance with law.
15. Respondent to bear the costs of this petition.