Pakistan Case Law← Search
2001 YLR 2906

MUHAMMAD FEROZE GHANI vs MEPCO (WAPDA) through Chief Executive,

Citation2001 YLR 2906
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No,11275 of 1998
Date2000-07-06
Judge(s)Bashir A. Mujahid
ResultOrder accordingly

ORDER

' Criminal Original has been filed on the allegation for Violating the order.' dated 10-12-1998 passed by this Court C.M. No,2 of 1998 in W.P. 11275 of 1998 wherein operation of the impugned order was suspended. Instead of deciding the Criminal Original alone, I would like to decide the writ petition today also.

2. The grievance voiced through this writ petition is that the petitioner is consumer of WAPDA and is running lce factory. Notice dated 13-8-1998 has been issued wherein amount for 87388 units has been demanded for a period from the month of October, 1997 to August, 1998 for slowness of the meter which has been found to the tune of 32.5% during the checking by the Circle Manager, MNT.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in many other cases decided by Wafaqi Mohtasib and by different Courts maximum previous bill for slowness of the meter is charged by WAPDA for only three months and not beyond that and the same has been paid by the consumer/petitioner after filing of the present petition.

4. Ihsan Rahim, Revenue Officer does not controvert the payment to the extent of about 3 months which comes to 37085 units but claims that bill for 50,000 units is still outstanding according to the determination by the competent authority.

5. Since it is practice of the Department under the decision from different Courts and also from Wafaqi Mohtasib that bill for detection of slowness is not to be charged beyond three months' period which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner has already been paid. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the amount already paid by the consumer/petitioner is sufficient to meet the demand/ends of justice. The department is restrained to charge more than what has already been paid and it is directed that in future the running bill will be issued to the petitioner payment in due course. The bill already issued will be amended accordingly .

' With this observation this petition is disposed of.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search