' On 25-9-1995, the Superintending Engineer, Circle-I, of the WAPDA, on receiving an information, detected excess consumption of energy of 49789 units, over the sanctioned load of 10 K.W for the period of six months immediately preceding the above date and the grievance of the petitioner in this Constitutional petition is that in violating of section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910, as amended by Punjab Amendment Ordinance, XXIX of 1971, and without issuing a statutory notice of ten (10) days, a detection bill for an amount of Rs. 1,58,986 was issued against the petitioner on the very next day i.e, 26-9-1995 and on the same day the electricity supply of the petitioner's industrial concern was disconnected.
2. The parawise comments furnished by the respondent-WAPDA show that the excess consumption was detected, as mentioned above, on 25-9-1995 and on the same day detection bill for Rs.1,58,986 was issued charging the petitioner with the above amount and on the same day the electricity supply was also disconnected.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detection bill has been issued illegally in violation of the principle of natural justice and even otherwise it is without jurisdiction as it has been issued in violation of section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910. Learned counsel has also placed his reliance on Mst. Zainab v. Chief Engineer, Electricity WAPDA and 2 others (1983 CLC 3314), Dr. Muhammad Rafiq Chaudhry v. WAPDA and others (1983 CLC 2397), Tahir Amin v. Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. (1984 CLC 2245 Kar. (D.B.) and Mian Muhammad Munir v. WAPDA and others 1983 CLC 211.
4. On the other hand while vehemently opposing the petition, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910, is not attracted to the facts of the case, the petitioner has not come with clean hands, he was found guilty of stealing the electricity and even in the present petition he has not explained the excess consumption of electricity as against the sanctioned load.
5. In Mst. Zainab v. Chief Engineer Electricity WAPDA and two others (Supra), a similar matter, the procedure in such like matters was discussed and it shows that there are instructions that before finalizing a matter and sending a notice for payment under section 24 of the Electricity Act, the consumer should be asked by a written notice (1st) to. Show cause why the cost of electrical energy consumed but unaccounted for be not debited to the consumer's account and invariably such a notice is issued to the consumer before the matter is finalized. Then a notice (2nd) under section 24 is issued and if the consumer even then fails to satisfy the Authority, the bill is prepared by a different section and sent to the consumer for payment. In the said case as no show-cause- notice was issued to the petitioner before the determination of the amount and before the issuance of the second notice under section 24 for compliance, the impugned action/notice was declared to be without lawful authority and it was further ordered that the case shall be deemed to be pending at the stage when the report was sent by the detection staff, and the Authority concerned was directed to pass a fresh order determining the liability after giving opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner. Similarly in Dr. Muhammad Rafiq Chaudhry v. WAPDA and others (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the sending of bill by the licenceeee to the consumer as detection charges on account of slowness of meter without sending any notice to the consumer before determining his liability was illegal as such a procedure contravened section 24 of the Electricity Act.
1910. In Tahir Amin v. Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. (supra) a Division Bench of Sindh High Court held that notice before the disconnection of electric supply was necessary and the application of principle of natural justice was not excluded by any provision of Electricity Act (IX) of 1910. Similarly in Mian Muhammad Munir v. WAPDA etc. (supra), it was held that WAPDA cannot ignore or violate law and become Judges in their own cause to deprive consumer of his right under section 24 of the electricity Act, (IX) of 1910.
6. Having been guided by the above said judgments, I am of the view that I WAPDA Authorities acted illegally in straightway issuing the detection bill to the petitioner without issuing a show- cause-notice under section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910. The writ petition is accepted and the order of issuance of detection bill against the petitioner is set aside. The case shall be deemed to be pending at the stage when the report was sent by the detection staff and the Authority concerned shall pass a fresh order determining the liability after giving opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.