IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.-This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 4.2.1990 of the Advisory Board, Punjab, Lahore, whereby the appeal of WAPDA against the decision dated 24.1.1988 of the Electric Inspector was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that M/s M.M.Malik Steel Furnace, Shalimar Town, Lahore, respondent No.3 herein, submitted an application in August 1986,under Clause-25 of the agreement between the parties read with section 25 of the Electricity Act, 1910, to the Electric Inspector, respondent No.2 herein, by which he challenged various bills sent by the petitioner to him to the extent of Rs.52,700/- each on the ground that they were wrongly included towards fixed charges. The learned Electric Inspector, alter hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence led by them, accepted the application by order dated 24.1.1988; the operative part of which reads thus:- "Summing up the facts of the case as mentioned in my findings, the respondents are entitled to recover the fixed charges for 190 K.W. Per month (880-600) less paid by the applicant in relation to the impugned electricity bills for the months of June 1986 to October 1986(5 months). And similarly, the applicant is also entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.1,31,750.00 deposited by him with this Inspectorate as 50% of the disputed amount".
3. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Punjab Advisory Board, which was dismissed on 4.2.1990.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that bills for the month of July 1986 was for 1310 K.W. Which is 90% of 1456 K.W. Under the law i.e. Schedule of Tariff B-3. The M.D.I.
1456 K.W. Was recorded on. The Check Meter declared to be correct by the Electric Inspector after his checking, dated 19.6.1986, but both the authorities/tribunals below have failed to appreciate this aspect which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
5. The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to appreciation of evidence. This question is concluded by concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners, which is not open to scrutiny in these proceedings. Same is the answer to other factual controversies raised in the writ petition.
6. It is next contended that the powers of the Electric .Inspector under sub-section (6) of section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910, are confined to the issue whether the measuring apparatus is correct or not, but the controversy of dishonest abstraction of energy was beyond the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector. The contention is devoid of any force. The Electric Inspector himself visited the premises of the respondent on 19.6.1986 and found that the MDI reading of the check meter was mechanically defective. Clearly this was not a case of dishonest abstraction of energy. Thus visualized, assumption of jurisdiction by the Electric Inspector suffers from no invalidity. Refer Chairman. WAPPA, WAPPA House. Lahore and two others Vs. Advisory Board. Punjab. Lahore and two others (PLJ 1987 Lah.290).
In view of the above, 1 find no force in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed in limine.