CH. UAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that Chairman, Area Electricity Board Multan constituted a Committee in compliance of Chief Engineer's letter dated 11th August, 1997 to check the Industry namely M/s. Colony Textiles Mills Ltd. Islamabad Multan on the following members:-
(1) Muhammad Ali Ghulam, Superintending Engineer '"E" WAPDA Multan Circle.
(2) Ahmad Din, Dy. Director (Tech) Multan Circle.
(3) Muhammad Ali Khurish Anwar, Executive Engineer M&T Division No. 2 Multan.
(4) Talib Hussain Malik, Xen 'E' Cantt: Division Multan.
The Committee visited th? Premises of the petitioner on 23.9.1997 at 1400 Hours and submitted the fallowing report:- After thorough examination of the metering equipment the Committee observed that KWH/MDI meter has been presented from registering actual energy consumed at the premises. The mode of theft applied in this case is explained as under:- MDI Knob tempered with by way of:
(i) By sheering the plastic housing Of MDI knob provided on and outside the energy meter.
(ii) Removing the insulated cap fixed on the extreme intenor end of knob inside the energy meter cover.
The matter was reported to the Chairman and subsequently on the night between 23rd and 24th September, 1997 connection of the petitioner was disconnected after obtaining the permission from Chairman. On 23.9.1997 written complaint was also sent to the S.H.O. Police Station Muzaffarabad Multan who recorded the formal F.I.R, on the basis of the written complaint under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act (Annexures A/3 and A/4 respectively). The petitioner filed this writ petition against the aforesaid actions of the respondents with the following prayer:- It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may graciously be accepted and the acts of the respondents No. 2 to 6 of constituting of fake Enquiry Committee and the report thereof dated 23.9.1997 and the letter dropped by the respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 7 on 23.9.1997 may be declared to be tainted with mala fides and ulterior considerations opposed to basic spirit of Electricity Act, 1910, the Rules framed thereunder and directive issued from time to time, void, ab initio and without lawful authority, consequent whereupon the case vide F.I.R. No. 254, dated 24.9.1997 u/S. 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910 registered at P.S. Muzaffarabad District Multan may be quashed.
The leamed counsel for the petitioner has raised the following points:-
(1) That no show-cause notice was issued by the respondents before determining the liability of the petitioner which is condition precedent under the provisions of the Electricity Act. Relied upon (P.L.J. 1996 Lah. 668); that the petitioner was not associated at the time of checking of the meter and calculation of the unit. He relied upon "Ms. Shams Textile Mills Ltd. v. WA PD A" (1989 C.L.C. 2345); that the impugned action of the Committee and subsequently the impugned bill has been issued as a result of ex parte and mala fide proceedings.
(2) That the disputed, amount is not at all due from the petitioner and the petitioner has filed previous bill in the proof of this and previous reports of the respondents. The action of the respondents is based on malice, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. He relied upon "The Murree Bruri Company v. Pakistan" (P.L.D. 1972 S.C. 279) and (P.L.D. 1990 Quetta 30).
(3) That respondents with ulterior motive without any notice to petitioner dis-connected the electric supply at night between 23rd and 24th of September, 1997 and removed the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner and 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 a case under Section 39-A of Electricity Act.
(4) He further argued that sub-section (1) of Section 20 which was added vide Electricity Act (Punjab Amendment Ordinance LXII of 1979) repealed by the Ordinance 27 of 1981 vide Item No. 325; and finally he argued that the action of the respondents is without lawful authority, coram non judice and mala fide, therefore, is non-existence in the eyes of law. He relied upon P.L.D. 1989 S.C. 26.
As against this, the leamed counsel for the respondents raised the following points:-
(1) That under Article 199 of the Constitution and Section 19(2) of the Water and Power Development Authorities Act, the writ petition is not maintainable.
(2) That in fact the petitioner had tampered with the meter by way of theft.
(3) That in fact, the petitioner by (i) sheering the plastic housing of MDI knob provided on and outside the energy meter, (ii) Removing the insulated cap fixed on the extreme interior end of the knob inside the energy meter cover.
(4) He further argued that the petitioner has alternative remedy by virtue of Section 26 (6) of Electricity Act. He relied upon Wapda v. Muhammad Riaz" (P.L.D. 1996 Lah. Page 56). He further argued that sub-section (i) of Section 20 remains in the field by virtue of Section 7 of the 'Ordinance 27 of 1981. He relied upon P.L.D. 1994 Peshawar page 192.
5. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties. It is well-settled principle of law that one of the conditions for the grant of relief in which jurisdiction of the High Court is that the petitioner before it should not have any alternative remedy is opening words of Article 199 of the Constitution "Article 199(1) Subject to Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law.
6. The Electricity Act, 1910 provided alternative adequate remedy under Section 26(6) of the /Vet which is meant to resolve of differences and disputes by the Electricity Inspector, further to petitioner can avail of the remedy under the general law from 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 connect ion or re-connection-after setting the amount if any. The point of jurisdiction was discussed in Muhammad Riaz' case (P.L.D. 1995 Lahore 56) and the relevant observation at page 75 is reproduced hereunder:- "....... The jurisdiction of the District Inspector is the provision of section 26(6) with reference to the meter or the maximum demand indictor or the measuring apparatus, supplied for ascertaining nine the supply of energy consumed at the premises. The amount of the bill for dishonest abstraction and the method adopted, would not be. Challengeable in contemplation of section 26- A before the Electric Inspector as the consumer who wishes to challenge the same will have to see his remedy under the general civil law by initiating appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court of plenary jurisdiction. The Electric Inspector by straining- the language cannot assume the jurisdiction which the legislature has no conferred on him and in its wisdom has left the parties to avail of the remedy under the General Law from the judicial forum itself which forum having the plenary jurisdiction is best suited to decide the question after holding proper enquiry and on the basis of proper evidence".
7. The nature of controversy between the parties to the petition particularly of check meter without associating the petitioner and the allegations that by sheering the plastic housing of MDI knob provided on and outside the energy meter, removing the insulated cap fixed on the extreme interior end of the knob inside the energy meter cover and registration of a case under Section 39- A of Electricity Act, 1910 by itself for factual controversies which cannot be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. We are fortified by the Supreme Court judgment 1993 SCM R 618, Muhammad Younis's case. 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. The petitioner as mentioned above has an alternative remedy under the provision of Electricity Act, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazalzada, Civil Judge, Lahore (P.L.D. 1996 S.C. 246), and the relevant observation is reproduced hereunder:- It is also note-worthy that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Articles 199 and 203 of the Constitution is of extraordinary nature and is, therefore, to be exercised sparingly. The High Court has to be specially conscious in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction when other adequate remedy is available to the party invoking that jurisdiction.
5. In view of the above discussion without pre-judging the issues on facts the petitioner to avail alternative adequate remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, we are of the view that the petition lacks merits and it is dismissed in limine.