ORDER AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J.- The petitioner, Aurangzeb Eshai, a consumer of electricity, through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeks that disconnection of the electricity supply of Bungalow bearing No. 8-F-Gulberg-II, Lahore where the petitioner is residing be declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and electricity supply to the said bungalow be restored immediately.
2. The learned counsel contended that the respondents with ulterior motive without notice to him disconnected the electricity supply on 12.9.1995 and removed the meter installed in his residential premises; further contended that the respondents unauthorisedly and without intimating the petitioner; adopted process of installation of a check meter and in consequence of which registered case under Section 39-A of Electricity Act, 1910.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset opposed the petition and contended that the writ petition is not entertainable as electricity connection has been disconnected in consequence of a case registered against the petitioner under Section 39-A of Electricity Act, 1910 against the petitioner; who has not availed the other alternative adequate remedies available to him.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the documents on the file.
5. Admittedly no show-cause notice was issued or served upon the petitioner for removal of the meter; the requirement of law under Section 39-A of Electricity Act, 1910 case was registered against the petitioner after adopting process of installation of check meter and allegedly there was a difference of 5845 units and the meter installed in i.e the premises of the petitioner was found 79.57 per cent slow: further the security slips and meter seals were found tempered with and repasted. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondents carries weight that petitioner should first avail the remedies available to him.
6. It is well settled principle of law that one of the conditions for grant of relief in. Which jurisdiction of the High Court is that the petitioner before it should not have any altmate remedy, the opening words of Article 199 of the Constitution are reproduced for ready reference as under:- "199(1) Subject to the Constition, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law-".
The Electricity Act, 1910, provides alternative adequate remedy under Section 26(6) of the Act which is meant to resolve of differences and disputes by the Electric Inspector; further the petitioner can avail of the remedy under the general law front the judicial forum by approaching the Civil Court for mandatory injunction; which is the best suit forum to decide the issue after holding proper inquiry and on the basis of proper evidence; further the petitioner can also apply to the respondents for new connection or reconnection after settling the amount if any.
7. The nature of controversy between the parties to the petition;-particularly installation of check meter without associating the petitioner, difference of 5845 units and the allegation that the security slips and meter seals were found tempered with and registration of a case under Section 39-A of Electricity Act, 1910 by itself are factual controversies which cannot be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court and High Court refrains from substituting its own finding of fact as observed by their Lordships in case Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others vs. Government of N.W.F.P.' through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture Peshawar and others (1993 S.C.M.R. 6.18) as it is a consistent view of the Supreme Court that in cases where factual controversies are involved, Constitutional petition is not the proper remedy.
8. In view of the above discussion without prejudging the issues on facts the petitioner is advised to avail alternative adequate remedies in accordance with law. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed.