MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---This judgment, shall deal with and decide Intra-Court Appeal No,360 of 2000 titled Muhammad Irshad v. Executive Engineer etc. and Intra-Court Appeal No, 295 of 2000 titled Better Engineering etc. v. WAPDA etc," as both the above appeals arose from writ petitions challenging demand i aised by WAPDA and its enforcement against two establishments.
2. Writ Petition No,22155 of 1999 was filed by Muhammad Irshad (appellant of Intra-Court Appeal No, 360 of 2000) against Executive Engineer Shandara Division, WAPDA Lahore and S.D.O., Kot Abdul Malik Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura claiming that;- "By a sale-deed dated 15-11-1995 registered on 21-11-1995 land measuring 8 Kanals alongwith structure boundary wall, electric connection and furnance/machinery was purchased by Javed Iqbal son of Haji Bashir Ahmad (to the extent of one-half) and three others i.e Riaz Ahmad, Abid Amin sons of Ghulam Mustafa Ghazi alongwith Mst. Shafqat Akbar wife of Akbar Ali Ghazi (to the extent of other one-half) from Muhammad Ramzan.
Through agreement dated 26-10-1996, Javed Iqbal son of Haji Bashir Ahmad agreed to sell his 50% abovesaid share i.e measuring 4 Kanals alongwith structure, boundary wall and all rights therein to Muhammad Irshad appellant for a sale consideration of Rs,10,00,000 which was received in total and possession of the abovesaid assets was transferred to the purchaser Muhammad Irshad, who was acknowledged to have become owner in possession and was given the right to get the sale- deed registered as and when the said purchaser deemed appropriate. It was also agreed that outstanding bills for electric energy and property tax etc. till the date of this agreement shall remain the liability of the seller i.e Javed Iqbal and for the period thereafter, purchaser Muhammad Irshad shall be responsible thereto."
3. By a separate receipt dated 26-10-1996 for delivery of machinery etc. the seller Javed Iqbal sold and delivered to Muhammad Irshad appellant: upon receipt of another 10 lacs as sale consideration, his 50% share of machinery installed at the land purchased by said Muhammad Irshad through above referred agreement to sell dated 26-10-1996, alongwith electric connection and security thereto. In this receipt also it was acknowledged by the seller that he shall remain responsible for payment of outstanding dues uptil the date of delivery of machinery etc. It was thus claimed by appellant Muhammad Irshad that, being owner of 50% as transferee from Javed Iqbal, he started participating in the business affairs as a share holder in the unregistered firm alongwith Muhammad Riaz, Abid Amin and Mst. Shafqat Akbar i.e the other 50% share holders, w .e . f. 26-10- 1996.
Sale-deed was, however, executed by Javed Iqbal in favour of Muhammad Irshad on 23-2-1998 which was registered on 26-5-1998 regarding the sale of 4 Kanals alongwith structure, boundary wall etc.
4. The establishment being operated upon this land etc. right from the beginning was known as Asghar Steel Mills against whom respondents/WAPDA raised a demand of Rs,1,76,28,053 for consumption of electric energy for the period of May, 1997 to November, 1997. It is on record that the electricity connection/meter was in the name of original owner "Asghar Ali."
5. Javed Iqbal i.e, transferer of 50% share to the appellant Muhammad Irshad in Asghar Steel Mills as detailed above, was also engaged in a similar business of manufacturing iron and steel products by the name and style of Better Engineering. In 1989, Better Engineering applied to WAPDA for grant of an industrial electricity connection. The Demand Notice No,49679 dated 5-12-1989 was issued to Better Engineering (hereinafter referred to as Better). The amount of Demand Notice was duly deposited but for a long time the connection was not supplied and energized. Ultimately Better was informed that since its managing partner i,e, Javed Iqbal was a share-holder of WAPDA's defaulter i,e, Asghar Steel Mills, therefore, industrial electricity connection cannot be energized for Better and a notice for recovery of Rs,1,76,28,053 (defaulted amount of Asghar Steel Mills) was also served upon said Javed Iqbal for payment. He through letter dated 5-8-1998 to WAPDA claimed that he, through agreement to sell dated 26-10-1996, had sold his entire share to Muhammad Irshad (appellant of Intra-Court Appeal No, 360 of 2000), therefore, he was not liable for the default of Asghar Steel Mills occurring during May, 1997 to November, 1997. WAPDA there upon, by letter dated 5-9-1998, served a Demand Notice upon Muhammad Irshad in the following terms: "You are advised in your-- own interest to show cause within ten days of the issue of this letter as to why you should not be held responsible for the payment of 50% of the out-standing dues viz Rs,1,76,28,053 in respect of M/s Asghar Steel Mill."
6. By letter dated 14-10-1998, recovery proceedings against Javed Iqbal were dropped but were initiated against Muhammad Irshad appellant by Chief Executive, LESCO Ltd. Lahore . However, on 22-10-1998, Executive Engineer, Shandara Division, Lahore requested the Chief Executive not to drop the recovery proceedings against Javed Iqbal as his name continues to appear as 50% owner of the furnace/factory land in the Revenue Record and grant of B-3 connection in the name of Better Engineering should be withheld till payment of his share by Javed Iqbal in default of M/s Asghar Steel Mills.
7. On 29-12-1998, Better Engineering and Javed Iqbal filed Writ Petition No,26488 of 1998 against WAPDA and LESCO etc. seeking writ against refusal by WAPDA to grant new connection and its action to recover the outstandings of Asghar Steel Mills from Javed Iqbal. In this writ petition, pre- admission notice was given to WAPDA on 29-12-1998 by the learned Single Judge, who on 5-1-1999 also directed appearance of Muhammad Irshad. On 8-1-1999, the petition was admitted to regular hearing. On the same date, counsel for Muhammad Irshad admitted that Javed Iqbal "ceased to have any concern with the business since October, 1996 as Javed Iqbal's share had been purchased by Muhammad Irshasd." Learned Single Judge, thereupon, passed following orders:- "In view of the statement made by Mirza Mahmood Ahmad, Advocate and the documents placed on record it is evident that the petitioner has ceased to have any connection with the premises since October, 1996 and cannot be held liable for any subsequent dues. He, therefore, cannot be refused connection for another premises on the ground that he is defaulter in respect of the premises in question. In this view of the matter, it is directed that the petitioner shall be given connection for the other premises provided he pays all usual charges till the final decision of this petition."
8. On 26-10-1999, Better Engineering and Javed Iqbal made a statement before the Court through their counsel that an agreement had been made between WAPDA and them, whereunder an amount of Rs,30,00,000 had been paid to WAPDA, which had agreed not to take any action against Better Engineering and Javed Iqbal. Learned Single Judge thereupon restrained to resort to any coercive measures for recovery.
9. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Irshad accepting his liability to the extent of 50% in the defaulted amount of Rs,1,76,28,053, on account of Asghar Steel Mills, applied to WAPDA under its incentive scheme issued as per Notification No,716-60-Encl/GMCS/ DD(R&CP)/57000, dated 12-5-1999 to allow payment of his share through 24 instalments. Since instalments of his 50% share were not allowed to him by WAPDA, therefore, Muhammad Irshad appellant, on 24-11-1999, filed Writ Petition No,22155 of 1999 with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the refusal of the respondents not allowing the petitioner the concession of payment of amount to the extent of his share in 24 instalments may kindly be declared to be illegal, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and discriminatory. The petitioner may kindly be allowed to deposit the amount to the extent of his own share in 24 equal instalments as per Notification dated 12-5-1999."
10.This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 2-12-1999 and upon petitioner's C.M. No,2 of 1999, learned Single Judge passed the following orders:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to para. 7 of the policy letter dated 12th of May, 1999, according to which the defaulting consumers who are not interested to get reconnection have been allowed to clear their outstanding dues in 24 equal monthly instalments.
There is no reason why the petitioner should be deprived of this benefit. Accordingly it is directed that the petitioner shall pay, the charges in 24 equal monthly instalments alongwith mark-up from the 1st of December, 1999 onward."
On 15-2-2000. Muhammad Irshad filed Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 2000 seeking permission of the Court to pay 50% share of the bill in 24 instalments and requested a direction to other co-owner for payment of 50% according to their respective share and stating that he had paid the first instalment of Rs,6,09,502 for the month of December, 1999 only.
11.When the matter came-up for hearing before learned Single Judge on 17-4-2000, Irshad's Writ Petition No,22155 of 1999 was dismissed with the following observations : - "This Court has earlier fixed instalments of the outstanding amount of Rs,1,40,28,043 which was to be paid by the petitioner and the concern, namely; Asghar Steel Mills. However, one instalment has unfortunately been paid, Petitioner's learned counsel has contended that the petitioner has only 1/2 share in Asghar Steel Mills, he is liable to pay only the same.
This contention is misconceived simply on the reason that it was the request of the petitioner that the instalments were earlier fixed and that time no such objection was raised and secondly the liability of partners is joint and several and in the case of dissolution of firm, the entire amount can be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has no merits which is. dismissed"
12.Owing to dismissal of Irshad's writ petition, the learned Single Judge also dismissed Writ Petition No,26488 of 1998 of Better Engineering and Javed Iqbal holding that:- "The connected petition filed by Muhammad Irshad to whom the petitioner had allegedly sold the property has been dismissed today. So far as the present case is concerned, the property was sold to Muhammad Irshad through a registered deed of sale dated 13-6-1998.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, says that the sale was made much earlier when the machinery was purchased. This plea cannot be accepted in the presence of the registered sale-deed dated 13-6-1998. The liability in question is of the year 1997 and as such the petitioner cannot avoid the same. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs."
13.The above said orders have respectively been challenged by Muhammad Irshad through Intra-Court Appeal No, 360 of 2000 and by Better Engineering and Javed Iqbal through Intra-Court Appeal No, 295 of 2000.
14.Learned counsel for the appellants, in above perspective of the case, stated that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge in both the cases neither deals with peculiar facts of the case nor does it contain any reasons qua the prayer made in the above referred, writ petitions by the appellants. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of misunderstanding that the appellant Irshad had requested for and agreed to pay the entire bill raised by WAPDA on account of Asghar Steel Mills, whereas the case of the appellant had throughout been that he is liable to pay only 50% of the share in the property or the so-called unregistered firm. And that in the circumstances of the case, principles of joint and several liability of the partner cannot be extended to the present case, as WAPDA had only raised a demand for 50% of the amount against Irshad and WAPDA has no authority to demand beyond the said amount.
It was also contended on behalf of appellants in Intra-Court Appeal No, 295 of 2000 i,e, Better Engineering and Javed Iqbal that having categorically held on 8-1-1999 that " the petitioner has ceased to have any connection with the premises since October, 1996 and cannot be held liable for any subsequent dues", the ,learned Single Judge could not have held the said appellants liable for the demanded amount raised regarding the year. 1997 only on the basis of registration of sale- deed in 1998. It was further contended that Irshad, w,e,f,. October, 1996, had become "Occupier" and had admitted his liability to the extent of 50%, while Javed Iqbal had ceased to be so and had no liability for the 50% share transferred by him to above said Irshad in 1996 and Better cannot be refused the industrial connection for the default of Asghar Steel Mills. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that even otherwise the principles of performance by any one of the promisees in case of a joint promise, as enunciated in sections 42 and 43 of the Contract Act, could not be extended to the present case because:-
(i) There was no joint promise in the present case. The original contracting party was Ch. Muhammad Asghar, the sponser of Asghar Steel Mills and not the subsequent owners like appellants and others, who could only be made responsible for payment of their respective shares;
(ii) It was not a case of contractual devolution of interest but was that of statutory qua the Government Corporations like WAPDA and its functionaries, who in consonance with the guarantees of fairness and equal treatment could legally only fix liability and make recovery thereof, from a consumer to the extent of his interest/share and not beyond it particularly when there was no joint contract in terms of sections 42 and 43 of the Contract Act between the share holders of Asghar Steel Mills which was being run and managed on the basis of shares in the land/assets as acquired by the parties through sale-deed and other relevant documents; (iii)Principles of section 25 of the Partnership Act, for above reasons, were not extendable by WAPDA in such cases to hold partners of un-registered firm as severally and jointly liable to be able to recover from one only; and (iv)Principles contained in a number of judgments were relied upon particularly in AIR 1964 Calcutta 196, AIR 1960 Madras 117, AIR 1961 Punjab 555, AIR 1929 Lahore 783, AIR 1917 Calcutta 647, 47 I.0 732, AIR 1983 SC 1235, AIR 1978 SC 593, AIR 1961 Allahabad 133, AIR 1946 Allahabad 489.
It was also emphasized by the learned counsel for the appellants that relationship in the present case with WAPDA was not created by any contract entered into between the appellants and WAPDA but was created by statute in terms of the definition of "consumer" contained in section 2-C of the Electricity Act which includes the "Occupier for the time being" also, wherefor WAPD'A can burden the appellant only to the extent of his share and because of mala fides to favour other co- owners, is pressing recovery of the entire amount from the appellant Irshad or Javed Iqbal.
Reliance was placed on PLD 1984 Karachi 401.
15. Conversely learned counsel for respondents argued that Javed Iqbal (appellant of Intra-Court Appeal No, 295 of 2000) still continues to be WAPDA's consumer being occupier and the sale-deed having been executed in 1998 to transfer his 50% share, he continues to be responsible for the entire amount of Rs,1,76,28,053 relating to May, 1997 to November, 1997 for consumption of electric energy by Asghar Steel Mills. It was emphatically argued that Irshad appellant had no responsibility whatsoever. It was further contended that WAPDA could recover the entire amount from any one of the partners specially when suits/writs/cases filed by other share-holders already stand dismissed for failure to deposit the amount and the present writs/appeals were only a device to escape from the entire liability. Even otherwise, Javed Iqbal continues to be liable to WAPDA for the said outstanding dues despite transfer of his share, therefore, Better Engineering with him as managing partner was not entitled to grant of a meter. Although, under an arrangement after receiving a sum of Rs,30,00,000 towards the outstanding bills of Asghar Steel Mills, WAPDA has already granted connection to Better Engineering but this arrangement/agreement was made subject to decision by this Court in writ or any appeal therefrom.
It was further contended that neither contractual obligations can be challenged in a writ nor can the present cases proceed as LESCO has not been impleaded as a party. Only S.D.O. and Executive Engineer had been made a party by Irshad, whereas on structural change, WAPDA's liabilities had been taken over by LESCO (Pvt.) Ltd., which has become the licensee and necessary party thereto.
Wherefor, the present appeal is liable to dismissal and that incentive scheme was also not available to Irshad to the extent of his 50% and he, in WAPDA's record, is not liable. These contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the respondents in Civil Miscellaneous No,2 of 2001 filed in Intra-Court Appeal No, 360 of 2000 to seek recalling of order dated 19-4-2001 passed by this Court, wherein, dismissal of Intra-Court Appeal No, 295 of 2000 was also sought. It was also contended that under section 43 of the Contract Act, a joint promise can be enforced against any of the promisers, as has been held in AIR 1964 Calcutta 196, AIR 1934 Madras 67 and AIR 1933 Patna
24. further under section 25 of the Partnership Act, recovery can be effected from any one of the partners.
16. We have considered the record placed, with the appeals by the parties and also detailed submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Both the writ petitions from which the present Intra-Court Appeals have arisen, were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 17-4-2000 through separate orders reproduced above in the statement of facts.
Better and Javed. Iqbal's writ petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the sale-deed was registered by Javed Iqbal (appellant in Intra-Court Appeal No,295 of 2000) in favour of Muhammad Irshad (appellant in I.C.A. No,360 of 2000) in mid 1998, therefore, the plea of transfer in 1996 cannot be accepted and the petitioner (Javed Iqbal) cannot avoid the liability arising in the year 1997. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to the above view of the learned Single Judge. An "occupier of the premises" has been included in the definition of "consumer" as given in section 2(c) of the Electricity Act, 1910 reading as under:- " 'Consumer' means any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee or (who is the owner or occupier of the premises which) are for the time being connected for the purposes of a supply of energy with the works of a licensee."
The above reproduced definition of the "consumer" includes the following persons in its scope of applicability:- (i)Any person who is supplied with energy by a licensee; or (ii)Any person who is the owner of the premises; or (iii)Any person who is the owner of the premises to which, for the time being, energy is being supplied; and (iv)Any person who is occupier of the premises to which, for the time being, energy is being supplied.
17. In the present cases, Javed Iqbal as well as Muhammad Irshad were admittedly not the persons with who licensee entered into a contract for supply of energy. The abovesaid appellants, thereafter on transfer, from time to time, successively became the owners and occupier to the extent of 50% of the premises for the time being connected with the works of the licensee for the purposes of supply of energy. As detailed out in paras 1 to 4 above, Javed Iqbal transferred his 50% share alongwith possession of the assets and machinery to Irshad w.e.f 26-10-1996 thereby totally divesting himself of any interest or share in the said property or mills. Though the sale-deed was executed/registered by Javed Iqbal in favour of Muhammad Irshad in mid-1998, yet the beneficial interest had effectively been transferred to Irshad by Javed Iqbal on 26-10-1996 by inducting him into physical possession of 4 Kanals of the land and assets alongwith delivery of 50% machinery.
Wherefor, section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 became applicable to protect any equitable title and interest acquired by Irshad against Javed Iqbal, who could thereafter at maximum recover the balance amount of the sale price. Since there was no balance outstanding in the present case, therefore, only a formal act of execution and registration of sale-deed was to be completed and that too at the option of Irshad purchaser. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Javed Iqbal had lost all rights, interests and seizen over the transferred assets and had no connection or concern with the said mills. Till execution and registration of the sale deed, he was owner in name only of "the premises' but drawing no benefits from the electric energy being supplied to such premises. Respondents have not been able to sbstantiate their arguments that Javed Iqbal retained any interest, right or seizen over the property/assets in question as owner and occupier and that all the rights, interests and seizen in the premises in question had not been transferred to Irshad w,e,f, 26-10-1998 despite postponment of this sale-deed to mid 1996.
18. Contrarily, respondents letters and notices (referred to in the statement of facts) clearly and categorically acknowledge Irshad's ownership/occupation over the premises from 1996 and divesturee of interest of Javed Iqbal. Initially, by letters of 25th-30th of July, 1998, respondents raised demand for the abovesaid defaulted amount by Asghar Steel Mills against Javed Iqbal. The said appellant on 5-8-1998 alongwith all the documents i.e agreement to sell, power of attorney to Irshad and payment receipt upto 26-10-1996, informed WAPDA about transfer of his 50% share in the mills to Muhammad Irshad. Respondents, whereupon, by their memo. No,21534-36/CE/DRS- 1500(L) dated 5-9-1998 raised a demand against Muhammad Irshad as under:- "Sub: OUTSTANDING DUES OF Rs,1,76,28,053 IN RESPECT OF M/s ASGHAR STEEL MILLS SHAHDARA LAHORE REF. NO.9141000000 In response, to the notice dated 21-84998 served to Mr. Javid Iqbal by XEN (E) Shandara Division LESCO Lahore, he (Mr. Javid Iqbal previous co-owner of M/s Asghar Steel Mill) has provided transfer of property documents to this office on the subject recovery case which shows that you are the present Co-owner of the property in question. You are advised in your own interest to show-cause within 10 days of the issue of this letter as to why you should not be held responsible for the payment of 50% of the out standing dues viz Rs,1,76,28,053 in respect of. M/S Asghar Steel Mill. The reply in this matter should be sent within the stipulated period, otherwise exparte recovery proceedings under Land Revenue Act shall be initiated against you."
19.By letter dated 15-9-1998, Irshad accepted ownership of 50% of the share.
20. Through memo. No .31145-47 dated 14-10-1998, Chief Executive LESCO directed S.E, LESCO as under:- -Sub: OUTSTANDING DUES OF RS.1,76,28,053 IN RESPECT OF M/S ASGHAR STEEL MILLS SHAHDARA LAHORE REF. NO.9141-000900 Reference this office Memo. No,21534-36, dated 5-9-1998.
In response to this office letter under reference which was addressed to Mr. Muhammad Irshad the Ex-Owner of M/s Asghar Steel Mills Shandara, Lahore, he (Mr. Muhammad Arshad) has sent his reply (copy enclosed) admitting the purchase of 50% shares of M/s Asghar Steel Mills from Mr. Javid Iqbal through an 'Agreement to Sell' (is Iqrar Nama) dated 26-10-1996, besides taking over the possession of this part of the Mill on the same date. He has further stated that the `Sale Deed' was got registered on 23-5-1998.
On the directions of the Chief Executive (LESCO) the matter was discussed with Mr. Ilyas Khan senior WAPDA Counsel who has given his opinion that the recovery Proceedings be initiated immediately under the Land Revenue Act 54-A, by Creating demand against Mr. Muhammad Arshad and suspend the recovery proceedings against Mr. Javid Iqbal the Ex-Owner. The Chief Executive (LESCO) has desired that a firm action be taken on the advice of the senior WAPDA Counsel immediately, under intimation to this office. Sd./ DIRECTOR COMMERCIAL FOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LESCO LTD. LAHORE.
CC
1. Mr. Javid Iqbal, 31-Shadman, Lahore for information.
2. XEN(E) Shandara Division for information with referecne to above."
In terms of the above reproduced letter from the Chief Executive LESCO, proceedings were dropped against Javed Iqbal and were initiated against Muhammad Irshad. On 22-10-1998, said Executive Egineer however, wrote back to thee Executive LESCO that "new B-3 connection of Mr. Javed Iqbal in the name of Better Engineering may please be with held till payment of his share in connection of M/s Asghar Steel Furnace."
21. We have no doubt in our minds that respondents accepted Muhammad Irshad as 50% owner of the transferred share with effect from 1996 and thus initiated proceedings of recovery against him thereby admitting Javed Iqbal not to be owner and occupier of the said premises. As such, there was no justification for respondents to withhold grant of industrial connection to Better Engineering. After their own admission, respondents are in fact estopped from raising demand against said Javed Iqbal. They under law, can only recover the outstanding amount on account of electric energy either from owner or occupier under the present circumstances. They cannot be allowed to grope around and put the noose of recovery in whichever neck it fits in. They are bound to identify their defaulters and proceed to recover the outstanding amount from such defaulters in accordance with law.
22. Furthermore, section 22 of the Electricity Act, 1910 embodies within it the principles of fair and equal treatment in the matter of supply of energy by a licensee even handedly and equally to all the applicants similarly circumstanced. Section 22 reads that:- "Obligation on licensee to supply energy.---Where energy is supplied by a licensee, every person within the area of supply shall, except in so far as it is otherwise provided by the terms and conditions of the licence, be entitled, on application, to a supply on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same areais entitled in similar circumstances to a corresponding supply."
23. In view of the above, withholding supply of B-3 connection to Better Engineering by respondents was an act beyond the competence of respondents. We, therefore, accept Intra-Court Appeal No, 295 of 2000, set aside the judgment dated 17-4-2000 passed by learned Single Judge and declare the recovery proceedings initiated against Javed Iqbal by respondents and non-grant of industrial electric connection to the appellants i.e Better Engineering and Javed Iqbal, as without lawful authority. Since the subject-matter has already been granted by respondents to the appellants, therefore, the same shall not be disconnected without due course of law.
24. Adverting to Intra-Court Appeal No, 360 of 2000, we have carefully noted that respondents by their above reproduced memo. No,21534-36/CE/DRS(L) dated 5-9-1998 served on appellant Muhammad Irshad had created and raised a demand against him for payment of 50% of the outstanding dues viz Rs,1,76,28,053 in respect of M/s Asghar Steel Mills. Memo. No,12686-87 dated 22-10-1998 written by Executive Engineer to the Chief Executive (LESCO) also shows that the Executive Engineer had recommended withholding of new B-3 connection to Javed Iqbal in the name of Better Engineering till payment of his share in connection of M/s Asghar Steel Mills. This share, as held above, was transferred by Javed Iqbal to Irshad appellant, wherefor it is obvious that the respondents sought and initiated recovery proceedings against Muhammad Irshad to the extent of 50% of the demanded amount. They cannot, therefore, be allowed to argue and raise any demand against Muhammad Irshad beyond above said share. As such, there is no need to give a judgment on other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. We may, however, observe that since the demand was raised against Muhammad Irshad by the functionaries of WAPDA and LESCO, therefore, they were duly impleaded as a party in representation of their company/organization.
25. In view of the above, accepting Intra-Court Appeal No, 360 of 2000, we set aside the order dated 17-4-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No,22155 of 1999 and issue a writ as prayed for by the appellant, who is also held to be entitled to the benefit of para. 7 of the incentive policy issued by WAPDA through Memo. No .716-60-Encl/GMCS/DD(R&CP)/ 57000 dated 12-5-1999. The amount already paid by appellant Irshad shall be duly adjusted. There shall be no order as to costs.