' By way of the instant revision petition, proprietor/managing Patner of Bismillah Cotton Factory seeks modification of an order passed on 28-9-1992 by a learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman Khan, dismissing the present petitioner's appeal directed against an order dated 19-3-1992 made by Civil Judge, Ist Class, Mailsi, granting a conditional stay order, while disposing of an application for temporary injunction, submitted alongwith the civil suit filed on 24- 2-1992 by the petitioner herein, against the WAPDA Authorities for perpettfal injunction, in order to have the defendants restrained from effecting recovery of arrears of dues and disconnecting the electricity supply to the factory.
2. In dispute is the bill for February, 1992, which, according to the petitioner, had carried a much too inflated amount, payable by the petitioner, the background being that earlier also the respondents had issued a bill in the amount of Rs,71,236 for the month of June, 1990, and validity of the demand had been challenged through a civil suit, which, however, was dismissed by Mr. Abdul Hamid Mirza, Civil Judge, Vehari, on 28-9-1991, but the appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 29-9- 1991 is still pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, which Court had issued a stay order, and as the S.D.O. concerned had cut off the connection on 30-12-1992, although the stay order was holding the field, and a Contempt of Court application had been moved against him, the same had embittered the S.D.O., who was also out to cause maximum damage to the business interests of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn up a chart showing yearly and monthly consumption of electricity by the factory from 1980-81 onwards, in order to demonstrate that the disputed bill, Annexure 'H', did not represent the correct state of affairs, besides not being in the prescribed form, in which the earlier bills, Annexures B to B/5, used to be issued. It is alleged that on 9-3-1992, the S.D.O. did pay a visit to the premises, when it was a Friday and not a working day, and in absence of the petitioner had prepared an incorrect report attributing to the petitioner the allegation that he had tampered with the meter, reversed its reading, and again sealed it by making use of some chemical (elfi). A case was got registered on 11-3-1992 at P.S. Miran Pur, District Vehari, by Mr. Javid Anwar, S.D.O., WAPDA Sub Division-II, Mailsi, who had addressed an application to the Superintendent of Police, Vehari, in that behalf. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the premises were actually visited and the meter was inspected by the S.D.O. on 9-3-1992, a similar allegation amazingly was contained in the written statement dated 4- 3-1992 and reply of even date made in response to the petitioner's prayer for issuance of the ad interim injunction. This would show, according to the learned counsel, that the S.D.O. had pre - supposed that a mischief had been done with the meter. To the same effect was the finding recorded by the two D.S.Ps., who had investigated the aforesaid case and had come to the conclusion that some body did tamper with the meter, though it was not the petitioner but the WAPDA Authorities themselves had done the mischief, in order to falsely involve the owners of the factory in the criminal case.
4. It is also urged that if the concerned person is not associated with the inspection of certain premises and with the investigation undertaken at the spot and further if the meter is installed outside the premises, and not within the boundary wall, the inmate or the owner of the concern will not be responsible for any disorderly or defective working of the meter or for any mischief that might have been indulged in by somebody. It is contended that the S.D.O.'s action was attended by mala fides and any report prepared by him was thus the outcome of malice on his part, and the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of the dues, depicted in the monthly bills, that followed the one in question, which was issued in February, 1992.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has highlighted the facts that the S.D.O. had not inspected the meter alone, but he was member of a committee, which was headed by the XEN, against whom there is no allegation of malice or Attention of the Court has been drawn to the data, which would show that the people owning or running the factory had played havoc with the meter. It is also pointed out that it had happened a number of times that the WAPDA people disconnected the meter, but the factory-owners reconnected the same, in an unauthorised manner, and continued getting supply of the energy. Never after February, 1992 has payment of any dues been made by the petitioner. The WAPDA Authorities reserve their right to proceed against the petitioner, in so far as non-payment of the subsequent bills is concerned. Actually, the petitioner had made use of political influence, by approaching some MPA, who had pressurised the Superintending Engineer who had no escape but to issue instructions to restore the supply of electricity to the factory without payment of outstanding dues even.
6. The learned Civil Judge had passed the order on 19-3-1992, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount by 24-4-1992, and in the event of the petitioner complying with the said direction, the defendants were advised not to cut off the supply of electricity. The learned Additional District Judge, in appeal, extended the time for making the deposit of the amount up to 25-10-1992, and dismissed the appeal, on finding it to be without merit.
7. The prayer made by the petitioner, in the present revision petition, is that the condition imposed about payment of the amount of the bill in dispute be waived of and injunction order be passed unconditionally. While admitting the revision petition, this Court had called upon the petitioner to make deposit of Rs,60,000 in cash and to furnish security for the balance amount. This order is said to have been complied with by the petitioner, who maintained that, as calculated by him, the average monthly bill, covering a period of 12 years last, did not go beyond Rs,60,000.
8. It is a suit for permanent injunction alone, and the plaintiff-petitioner does not seek any declaration. If the concern cares to deposit the disputed amount of bill, and the same is afterwards found to be exaggerated or unjustified, on being referred to Electric Inspector, to whose scrutiny the petitioner is prepared to submit, the extra amount shall be refunded to him, as stipulated by section 54 of the Electricity Act. Actually when the meter was checked by a Commission consisting of an XEN, two SDOs and officials of the Maintenance and Test Staff, on 27-2-1992, the proprietor and the manager of the factory were also in attendance, and the petitioner in maintaining otherwise is not being truthful, it is so submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is also averred that it is a seasonal concern and when cotton supply registers reduction, operation of the factory also undergoes a corresponding cut, bringing in its wake lesser consumption of energy, and the monthly bill relating to such period does not represent the normal consumption. When the cotton crop goes, its supply comes to an end and the factory stops working and there is break of several months in its operation every year.
8. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that ever since February, 1992, as already said, the petitioner has stopped making payment of the dues, although under challenge is the bill for February, 1992, and the petitioner had no justification to withhold the payment afterwards. For success in the revision petition, it has essentially to be established by the petitioner that some material irregularity has been committed by the Courts below, in dealing with the matter, or there has been an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the said Courts. I am afraid, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pinpoint any such incidence, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being without merit is hereby dismissed with costs.
' The petitioner would make payment of the amount of the disputed bill within a month, failing which the WAPDA Authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against the concern.