' A challenge has been made in this Constitutional petition to order dated 4-3-1991 passed by the Advisory Board, Punjab, Lahore, whereby decision dated 28-6-1990 recorded by the Electric Inspector, Lahore Region, Lahore, was set aside and detection charges of Rs,274,489 contained in the bill for December 1989 sought to be recovered from Barkat Ali respondent No, 1 was declared as illegal.
2. The facts in brief are that Barkat All respondent No, 1 is a consumer of WAPDA for the supply of electric energy with the sanction load of 52KW. It is alleged that metering equipments installed at the premises of respondent No, 1 were checked on 8-12-1989 by a team of petitioner No,
1. On opening of anti-theft box it was apprehended that the current transformers of bigger capacity than the sanctioned load were installed. They allegedly found to be of 300/5AMPS. In consequence the disputed bill was issued to respondent No,
1. Feeling aggrieved with the issuance of the aforesaid bill respondent No, 1 challenged it by approaching the Electric Inspector under section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred as Act), read with clause (25) of the agreement for the supply of energy executed between the parties. The application was dismissed by respondent No, 2 by order dated 28-6-1990. Against this order respondent No, 1 filed appeal before the Advisory Board, Punjab, Lahore, which was accepted vide order dated 4-3-1991 which has been impugned in these proceedings.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Government under section 35 of the Act, Notification No, SO(PP)5-1/79 dated 5-9-1989 followed by Notification of even number dated 17-10-1989 was issued by the Government of Punjab Irrigation and Power. Department whereby the Advisory Board was reconstituted for the Province of Punjab. Procedure to be followed by the Board for the consideration of appeal cases was also laid down in paragraph 4 thereof which reads as follows:-- "(i) The Advisory Board may adopt such procedure to hear and dispose of the appeals as may be considered expedient in the circumstances of the case to ensure justice.
(ii) The proceedings of the Advisory Board will be presided over by Chairman. The hearing of the appeal will be conducted by him in the presence of all the members.
(iii) The decision of the Advisory Board shall be unanimous. In case of difference between the Chairman and the Members the matter will be referred to the Government whose decision thereon shall be final.
(iv) The Board will be competent to depute any technical person(s) to visit any premises or place for ascertaining the facts and obtaining such information as may be considered necessary for the disposal of the appeal.
(v) The Board shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. In case the Board fails to dispose of the same within the stipulated period, it shall do so within a reasonable time, after recording reasons for such delay. Further the Board shall furnish a monthly report to the Government in case, the appeal was not decided within a period of four months from its presentation.
(vi) The Secretary of the Board will maintain the record of the appeals and will make correspondence on behalf of the Board. He will not however be considered as a Member of the Board for the disposal of an appeal."
4. A bare perusal of paragraph 4 of the notification (supra) would show that the decision of the Advisory Board has to be unanimous and in case of difference between the Chairman and the members the matter is to be referred to the Government for final decision. Here it is admitted in the report submitted by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that the impugned order of the Punjab Advisory Board was issued under the signatures of the President/Chairman of the Advisory Board and one of the members whereas hearing of the appeal ought to have been conducted by the Chairman in presence of all the members. Clearly, the hearing of appeal in the absence of the second member amounts to denial of a fair hearing so as to make the proceedings void or illegal. It is true that violation of procedural rule regulating the hearing, if it results in a minor error, does not amount to denial of fair hearing or for quashing the proceedings if by such error no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Here one of the members of the Advisory Board was neither present at the time of hearing of the appeal nor participated in the decision thereof at any stage, therefore, great prejudice was caused to the appellant due to his absence, in that the decision rendered by the Chairman with one member cannot be considered as unanimous within the purview of clause (iii) of paragraph 4 of the notification dated 17-10-1989.
' In view of the above, the impugned proceedings before the Punjab Advisory Board were coram non judice. The writ petition is,' therefore, accepted by declaring the order dated 4-3-1991 passed by the Advisory Board as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the appeal filed by the respondent No, 1 against the decision of the Electric Inspector dated 28-6-1990 shall be deemed to be pending and the same shall be disposed of afresh on merits and in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties. There shall be no order as to costs as respondents are ex parte. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.