' Respondent No,1, Proprietor of Jannat Ice Factory, is an industrial consumer. The factory had a sanctioned load of 97 K.W. Respondent No,1 made an application to SDO, WAPDA on 21-5-1988 for the reduction in load from 97 K.W. To 56 K.W. The application was duly received by the SDO on 22- 5-1988 but reduction in load was not sanctioned-and respondent No,1 was continuously billed under Tariff B.f. In the month of September, 1988, respondent No,1 received a bill for Rs,97,168 which included the arrears of Rs,85,695. Respondent No,1 approached the authorities concerned with the request to withdraw the bill but no action was taken thereon. He, therefore, moved an application under sections 24 and 26 of the Electricity Act before the Electric Inspector, Government of the Punjab, Lahore making a grievance therein that despite his repeated requests, no action was being taken by the WAPDA on his application for reduction in load and he was being charged extra bills though electricity consumed by his factory did not exceed 56 KW. A prayer was accordingly made by the respondent that "the bill issued by the respondents for Rs,97,168 in which a sum of Rs,85,695 is included as arrears may kindly be declared as illegal, void, and against law and therefore the same be set aside". WAPDA resisted the respondent's application on the ground, inter alia, that he had not made the application for reduction in load on prescribed form. It appears that respondent No,1 also made further applications 'before the Electric Inspector challenging some more bills issued by the WAPDA from January, 1989 to May, 1989.
2. On the pleadings of the parties, Electric Inspector framed following two issues:--
(i) Whether the petitioner applied for reduction of load on 21-5-1988 or not?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for benefit on account of reduction of load from the date of filing of application with the SDO concerned or from the date of sanction in reduction of load by the competent authority of the respondents?
3. Electric Inspector after receiving evidence from both sides found both the issues in favour of respondent No,1. On issue No,1, the Electric Inspector observed that the respondent's application for reduction in load was duly received in the office of the SDO on 22-5-1988. The SDO ordered the SDC to supply A & A form enabling the respondent to apply on those forms. The SDC did not comply with the order of the SDO with the result that respondent No,1 could not apply on the prescribed form. Respondent No,1 submitted yet another application on 4-10-1988 in continuation of his earlier application which, too, was received in the office of the SDO. Respondent No,1 was, however, asked vide letter dated 8-4-1989 to apply for reduction in load on prescribed form. The Electric Inspector observed that such a letter should have been written to respondent No,1 in May, 1988, to enable him to apply on prescribed form before the 30th of June, 1988, "because if a consumer applies for reduction of load before the end of any financial year then his case is to be processed without any loss of time so that he may get the benefit of this reduction of load with effect from Ist July, 1988 i,e, from the start of next financial year".. The Electrict Inspector took note of a precedent where an application for reduction of load moved on 28-6-1987 was granted and the reduction in load sanctioned on 30-6-1987 i,e, within three days. The Electric Inspector also observed that the case of reduction in load could be processed and sanctioned within a week's time as no technical. Report or availability of load or other formalities or reports were required in such cases. The Electric Inspector thus held that respondent No,1 had duly applied for reduction in load on 21-5-1988 and he was not at fault in not applying on the prescribed form. On perusal of the record of M.D.I. With effect from May, 1988, it was noted by the Electric Inspector that respondent No,1 had actually reduced the load up to 56 K.W. And shifted rest of the load on to the generator.
' On issue No,2, the Electric Inspector held that in cases of reduction in load, benefit of reduction is to be given to the consumer from the date of his application and not from the date of sanction.
Reliance in this connection was placed on two precedents from Gujranwala. In one case, the consumer who had applied for reduction of load on 18-6-1987 was given the benefit of reduction in load from the start of next financial year i,e, from 1-7-1987 although the sanction was granted by the competent authority on 17-12-1987. Similarly, in the other case, the consumer had applied for reduction in load on 26-6-1986 which was sanctioned on 10-7-1986 yet he got the benefit of reduction from 1st July, 1986. It was accordingly held that respondent No,1 having applied for reduction in load in May, 1988, was entitled to the benefit of reduction with effect from Ist July, 1988, irrespective of the fact that the competent authority had failed to process and sanction the application for which the respondent was not at fault and moreso for the reason that the respondent himself had physically reduced the load from 97 K.W. To 56 K.W. With effect from the date of his application.
' In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Electric Inspector by his order dated 19-7-1989 declared that the bills impugned before him were illegally issued by WAPDA which respondent No,1 was not liable to pay and WAPDA was directed to issue revised bills on the basis of actual M.D.I. And units recorded on the meter with effect from 1st July, 1988. Feeling aggrieved, WAPDA and its officers, petitioners herein, preferred an appeal against the order of the Electric Inspector which was dismissed by the Advisory Board/Appellate Authority vide its decision dated 18-11-1990. These orders have now been brought under challenge through this Constitutional petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioneRs, He has contended that since respondent No,1 had not applied for reduction in load on the prescribed form, the authorities concerned rightly ignored his request and took no action thereon. I find no merit in this contention for more than one reason. It is an admitted position that respondent No,1 had applied for reduction in load in May, 1988. He was not asked immediately or even within reasonable time to apply on the prescribed form. Such a requirement was, in fact, conveyed to him only in April, 1989. Electric Inspector has, therefore, rightly observed that the objection in question should have been communicated to respondent No,1 in May, 1988 so that he could make the application on the prescribed form before 30th June, 1988. Even otherwise, the requirement of making an application on a prescribed form is a mere formality for nonobservance of which, relief otherwise due cannot be refused. The authorities concerned should have looked to the substance of the application rather than insisting on a technical formality.
5. It was next contended by the learned counsel that even the application made on a plain paper did not disclose the full information. This contention has also not impressed me for the simple reason that the learned counsel has not specified the precise information which respondent No,1 was required to disclose. In any case if the application was really wanting in some requisite particulars or details, the same could well have been sought from the respondent. The record, however, does not show that respondent No,1 was ever asked by the authorities concerned to supply the so-called requisite information. I also find that the objection now being agitated was not raised by the petitioners either before the Electric Inspector or before the Appellate Board. It cannot, therefore, be permitted to be raised for the first time in these proceedings.
6. It was lastly argued by the learned counsel that under section 26 of the Electricity Act, the Electric Inspector has no jurisdiction to change the tariff. The argument appears to be misconceived. The Electric Inspector has nowhere given any direction as such for the change of tariff. Of course, the reduction in load may result in the change of rate to be charged for the electricity consumed. The Electric Inspector undoubtedly had the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the respondent's grievance/complaint of excessive billing resulting from the failure of the petitioners to sanction the reduction in load applied for by him. The impugned order of the Electric Inspector quite clearly shows that he has declared as illegal the bills issued by WAPDA.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order of the Electric Inspector and of Advisory Board are not shown to suffer from any illegality much less from jurisdictional defect. They, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. Writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.