KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J:--This appeal was directed against the order, dated 5th July, 1992 whereby learned Single Judge disposed of writ petition as having borne fruit. The writ petition was so disposed by observing that Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, learned counsel for respondents (now appellants) has placed on record report of the Chairman, Area Electricity Board which shows that the disputed bill has been reduced from Rs. 3,12,583 to Rs. 1,41,714 and that respondent No. 6 (S.D.O.) has given undertaking that a sum of Rs. 1,70,869 shall be refunded to the petitioner within one week in pursuance of the report dated 19-5-1992 of the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Faisalabad.
2. The appellants before filing this appeal submitted a review application pointing out that the observation noted above does not flow from the decision dated 19-5-1992 of the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Faisalabad and that a sum of Rs. 1,41,714 pertained to the period of different from the period for which a sum of Rs. 3,12,583 was demanded. This review application was however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge observing that no jurisdiction for review was made out. The appellants then filed an Intra-Court Appeal and Division Bench on 9th August, 1992 directed the Chairman, Area Electricity Board to work out the correct amount to be adjusted. The Chairman, Area Electricity Board has submitted his report dated 31-1-1993. He had noted that he in pursuance of the order dated 8-2-1992 passed in W.P. No. 11963/91 granted personal hearing to the respondent/consumer and decided the case according to which order Rs. 1,41,714 were payable by the consumer on account of slowness of meter for the period 6-12-1991 to 4-2-1992. The Chairman, Area Electricity Board has also pointed out in the report that the Writ Petition No. 2810 of 1992, out of which the present appeal arose relates to the period when the consumer was provided direct unmetered supply from 6-2-1992 to 2-3-1992 plus period when meter remained installed i.e. 2-3- 1992 to 5-3-1992. In this respect an undertaking was also given by the consumer to pay the energy bill amounting to Rs. 3,12,583 alongwith the cost of burnt meter which was Rs. 20,500. It is thus clarified that no reduction of detection bill was made and no mistake was committed in calculating the outstanding bills against Mian Abdul Aziz Rafiq, Managing Partner of Gojra Cotton Ginning Factory, Gojra. We asked the learned counsel for respondent to point out the report wherein the disputed bill was reduced from Rs. 3,12,583 to Rs. 1,41,714. He replied that an officer, S.D.O.
(respondent No. 6) while appearing in the Court had stated that amount has been so reduced and that refund of Rs. 1,70,869 would be given. This plea cannot be accepted as in the impugned order, dated 5-7-1992 there is a reference of the report dated 1.9-5-1992 submitted by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board. This report is available on record and admittedly in the said report a sum of Rs. 3,12,583 was not reduced. In fact the said decision pertains to the dispute as to the amount chargeable for the period 6-12-1991 to 4-2-1992. The matter is crystalised from the further report dated 31-1-1993 wherein Chairman, Area Electricity Board has reported that no reduction of detection bill was made and no mistake was committed in calculating the outstanding bill against respondent consumer and that two sums in question represent the supply of energy for two different periods. This being the position, it is clear that no reduction in the bill was made by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, and, therefore, no amount is refundable. Thus, matter of an undertaking to refund the amount was proceeded on some mistake of fact and in view of the afore-noted fact, the appellant-authority cannot be held bound by such mistaken undertaking.
3. We may, however, notice here the two preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. He submitted that the appeal has been filed by the S.D.O. Of the appellants- authority and as such is not competent. There is no merit in this submission. The appeal has been filed on behalf of the Wapda-authority as well as by the learned counsel who was authorised to rile this appeal under the resolution of the authority. Next it was contended that the appeal was barred by time, but the learned counsel was not able to substantiate this plea. We have gone through the report of the office according to which the appeal was within time.
4. For the reasons given above, the appeal succeeds and the order dated 5-7-1992 is modified in the manner that no amount is refundable to the respondent. Parties are left to bear their own costs.