' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, calls in question the order dated 10th March, 1988, passed by the Chairman, Advisory Board, Punjab, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26-3-1987, of the Electric Inspector, Government of the Punjab, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad, regarding recovery of dispute-0 amount as cost of material from respondent No,1.
2. The background of the case is that petitioner Authority raised a demand of Rs,14,160 against respondent No,1 on account of reconnection of supply of energy at his premises. Respondent No,l challenged the said demand as well as another demand for Rs,1,416 relating to meter rent, service rent, rued charges and surcharge for non-payment, by means of Writ Petition No,3783 of 1984.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, in compliance with the interim order dated 21-1-1985, the respondent's premises were reconnected on 9-2-1985. However, apart from the aforesaid demand the Revenue Officer of petitioner No,1, raised another claim of Rs,257 against respondent No,1 on account of fixed charges etc. Relating to the month of January, 1985. The said writ petition was, however, disposed of with the observation that respondent No,1, may if so advised, refer the question of disputed amount to the Electric Inspector. Consequently, the Electric Inspector after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact that the demand placed by the petitioners against respondent No,1 for Rs,14,160 on account of material was illegal. The operative portion reads as under:- "According to my above discussion it is established from the record that the matter was delayed intentionally by the respondents, and there was no ground for the demand of Rs,14,000 as cost of material. The petitioner cannot be burdened with this cost due to the fault of the respondents.
Accordingly I hold that the demand placed by respondents on the petitioner for Rs,14,000 on account of cost of material is illegal, unlawful and without any justification and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the same."
3. The petitioners filed an appeal against the decision of the Electric Inspector before the Advisory Board, who after re-appreciating the material on record concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the Electric Inspector and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners by order dated 10th March, 1988.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order has been passed by the Electric Inspector without taking into consideration the evidence led by the petitioners before him inasmuch as the statement of Syed S. Niaz Hussain Naqvi, XEN, WAPDA, was not taken into consideration.
' The contention is frivolous on the face of it. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the Electrict Inspector not only perused the entire record before passing the impugned order but also heard Syed S. Niaz Hussain XEN who appeared before him on 20-1-1986 and after hearing him at length, passed the impugned order. Suffice it to say, that the Electric Inspector in para. 4 of his decision recorded a finding of fact to the following effect:- "The consumer was charged 1509 units and 1247 units for the months of 3/84 and 4/84 respectively vide Audit Note No,69 dated 2-12-1984. It seems that the ledger list is bogus as according to the respondent No,3, the supply was disconnected on 4-10-1983. The ledger list belies the statement of the respondent No,3."
5. The Chairman, Advisory Board agreed with the finding of Electric Inspector and further held that the plea of the petitioners that the equipments were removed from 120 days from the date of disconnection, was not established on record. It would thus be seen that the controversy raised in this petition is concluded by a concurrent finding of fact which is not open to scrutiny in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to demonstrate any misreading of record.
6. It is next contended that respondent No,1 wrongly stated before the Electric Inspector as well as the Chairman, Advisory Board, Punjab, lahore, that the supply was disconnected on 11-8-1985, whereas the factual position is that the meter was disconnected on 14-10-1984. This factual controversy cannot be examined in these proceedings.
7. It is finally contended that the impugned order was not specifically challenged before the Electric Inspector but only an application was made that the dispute be adjudicated in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No,3783 of 1984.
In any event this point was not raised before the Advisory Board and, therefore, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in these proceedings. Even otherwise, the objection is purely technical and the cognizance taken by the Electric Inspector with regard to the disputed demand did not suffer from any ambiguity or illegality in terms of Section 24 of the Electricity Act.
8. In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.