Facts giving rise to this constitutional petition, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Jahangir petitioner, a share-holder/Director of R.J. Steel Mills (Pvt.) Limited applied for electricity connection for the Steel Furnace installed by the Company at Shamke in the area of Muridke. Connection was duly sanctioned and the petitioner also paid/deposited the necessary dues. WAPDA, however, refused to connect the premises of R.J. Steel (Pvt.) Limited on the plea that Mian Muhammad Riaz of M. M. Malik Steel Furnace who had applied for new connection in the name of R.J. Furnace (Riaz Jahangir Furnace) was a defaulter of outstanding arrears amounting to Rs.17 millions. This action of the respondents has been brought under challenge in this petition seeking a declaration that "the withholding of the electricity connection by the respondents to the premises of the petitioner is illegal and without lawful authority". It has been further prayed that the respondents be directed to install the electricity connection.
2. Case of the petitioner is that he being the share-holder/Director of R.J. Steel Mills applied for the electricity connection for the Steel Furnace set up by the company at Shamke and that Mian Muhammad Riaz, the alleged defaulter, has nothing to do with R.J. Steel (Pvt.) Limited. It is submitted that the petitioner and Riaz Ahmad Qadeer son of Haji Taj Din have formed the company in the name and style of R.J. Steel (Pvt.) Limited and this company has installed the Steel Furnace at Shamke.
3. On 5-10-1988, it was submitted on behalf of WAPDA that Muhammad Jahangir petitioner was a share-holder of another company, namely, J.R. Steel Industries of which the said Mian Muhammad Riaz, the owner of M. M. Malik Steel Furnace was also a share-holder. It was, however, conceded by the learned counsel for WAPDA that the said JR. Steel Industries had not installed any factory or industry nor was it ever given any electricity connection.
4. Since the question as to whether the aforesaid Mian Muhammad Riaz was in any manner connected with R.J. Steel (Pvt.) Limited was a pure question of fact, I asked the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Lahore, to hold an inquiry and give his findings on the following points:-
(1) Whether Mian Muhammad Riaz of M. M. Malik Steel Furnace who, it was alleged, was a defaulter of the aforesaid amount has anything to do with R.J. Steel Furnace installed at Shamke;
(2) Whether Muhammad Jahangir petitioner was in any manner connected with M. M. Malik Steel Furnace, and
(3) Whether J. R. Steel Industries had ever received any electricity connection from WAPDA.
5. Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Lahore, has submitted his report wherein he has found on the first question that although when Muhammad Jahangir applied for getting electricity connection, "no company under the names of R. J. Steel Mills was in existence, yet the department could not prove that Mian Muhammad Riaz of M. M. Malik Steel Furnace who is alleged defaulter has anything to do with R.J. Steel Furnace installed at Shamke".
As regards the second question, no definite finding has been recorded by the Chairman in his report. It is, however, stated therein that in J. R. Steel Industries (Pvt.) Limited, Mian Muhammad Riaz son of Mian Said Muhammad is the Chief Executive while Mian Muhammad Jahangir petitioner and two others are the Directors. It is further observed in the report "the case of the department is that Mian Muhammad Riaz is acting on behalf of the other directors of J. R. Steel". It is also stated that M.
M. Malik was the previous registered consumer of WAPDA and later on he sold the premises which ultimately were transferred to Mian Muhammad Riaz. With reference to some documents of the Income Tax Department wherein the names of Messrs J.R. Steel Industries Limited and of M.M. Malik Steel Furnace have been mentioned, the Chairman has observed "it very rightly creates doubt that M/s. J. R. Steel Industries while submitting their Income Tax Returns/Income Statements must have given the income/payment in respect of M. M. Malik Steel Furnace".
Regarding the third point, the Chairman has observed in his report "this question can also be answered after examining the income tax record".
6. Learned counsel appearing for WAPDA agrees that the finding/observation made by the Chairman regarding the second question is only inferential and on the present record, it was not possible to give any definite findings. He submits that the department will hold further inquiry into the matter for reaching a definite conclusion.
7. In view of what has been said above, it is quite evident that the department has not been able to prove that Mian Muhammad Riaz, the alleged defaulter, has anything to do with R. J. Steel Furnace installed at Shamke. A Moreover, the Chairman has also not recorded any definite finding that Muhammad Jahangir petitioner was connected with M. M. Malik Steel Furnace in respect whereof Mian Muhammad Riaz was alleged to be a defaulter. In the circumstances, the refusal of WAPDA to connect the petitioner's premises and to supply electricity thereto cannot be sustained. Learned counsel appearing for WAPDA; however, submits that since the matter calls for further inquiry which the respondents shall hold in due course, petitioner may be called upon to give an undertaking in writing that if on any future date, it is found by WAPDA that the petitioner had any connection with Mian Muhammad Riaz and/or M. M. Malik Steel Furnace, he will either pay the entire amount outstanding against Mian I Muhammad Riaz failing which he will have no objection to the disconnection of electricity from his premises. This proposition is acceptable to the petitioner and his learned counsel. It is, therefore, directed that on the petitioner's furnishing the requisite undertaking in the aforesaid terms to the Chief Engineer/Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Gujranwala, his premises will be connected and the electricity supplied to him within a period of ten days, subject, of course, to the availability of necessary equipments. Needless to observe that in the event of any adverse finding reached against the petitioner in any further inquiry, it will be open to him to challenge it in any appropriate forum. Writ petition thus stands disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs.