MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J. -- Through this writ petition, the petitioner i.e. Tanveer Rasool Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited seeks restoration of electric connection/electricity meter bearing meter/Account No. 27-5216-35254009 claiming that the petitioner-company was not a defaulter and was up-to- date on payment of all its dues. Wherefore, disconnection by respondents i.e. MAPCO, of electricity energy was contrary to law and rules applicable thereto. In para 11 of the said petition, the petitioner also pleaded that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by Chief Executive i.e. Rashid Ali "Khan against respondents to perpetually restrain the respondents from illegally disconnecting the electricity meter or undertaking any illegal proceedings thereagainst. It is stated that this suit was filed on 1st of August, 2001 and a notice to respondents was issued by the learned Civil Judge.
However, respondents without awaiting the result of the civil suit or application for temporary injunction filed therewith, disconnected petitioner's electricity connection on 3.8.2001. Wherefor, the suit became infructuous. On 4.8.2001, by an unqualified statement before the learned Civil Judge, petitioner sought to withdraw the said suit unconditionally as the same had become infructuous.
2. It was also pleaded in the petition that the petitioner- company was illegally subjected to proceedings of disconnection and recovery because electricity meter bearing Account No. 521613282002 in the name of Tanveer Innran Cotton Ginning Factory had been served by respondents and Rs. 1,28,780/- were due on account of disconnected meter. Further that subject- matter of the writ petition had no concern or connection with the electricity meter, which is under recovery proceedings of respondents, hence the present petition.
3. Respondents, on notice, submitted their report and parawise comments. They are also represented by their learned counsel. Respondent No. 2 i.e. S.D.O., Sub-Division, Khangarh was also present with record. The case was argued at length, wherefor, the same is treated as an admitted case and decided as a Pacca matter.
4. In parawise comments as well as at the bar, it has been admitted that meter bearing Account No. 35254009 is not in any default and that the petitioner-company is up-to-date on payments.
However, following objections were raised by the respondents that:-
(i) The Meter No. 35252009 and Meter No. 13282002 were obtained from respondents under signatures of Mr. Tanveer Rasool, though the meter in dispute in the present petition was in the name of Tanveer Rasool Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited and the other was in the name of Tanveer Imran Cotton Ginning Factory. It was contended that both the meters were obtained by the same person who also signed agreements with WAPDA on behalf of the two organizations, therefore, WAPDA treats the two meters in the name of the same person, without going into nuainces of law regarding distinction of corporate entries or names thereto.
(ii) Under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, respondents have the authority to disconnect meter installed at the same premises irrespective of the holders of the connection.
(i.e) Civil suit for permanent injunction was still pending with the next date of hearing as 1.9.2001, wherefor, the present petition was unmaintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner controverted the contentions of the respondents by saying that civil suit practically stands withdrawn on statement made for unconditional withdrawal thereto on 4.8.2001. It is further stated that two meters were in the name of two distinct persons i.e. One was in the name of a private limited company incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984, while the second was held by a firm. As such, the two are distinct legal entities. It was further stated that since the meters were in different names though the premises were adjoining, therefor, powers contained in Section 24 of the Electricity Act, if any, were not attracted in the present case.
6. I have attended to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. On Court's asking, respondent No. 2 i.e. S.D.O. Produced application forms on the basis of which contract was entered between WAPDA and the concerned consumers. It was admitted that two meters were in the name of two different entities i.e. Tanveer Rasool Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.)
Limited and Tanveer lmran Cotton Ginning Factory. It was however re-emphasized that two application forms as well as contracts were signed by Tanveer Rasool representing both and it was also emphatically argued that two organizations/entities were owned by the same natural persons, who constitute the Board of Directors of the Company as well as the Managing Body of the Ginning Factory. I believe, respondents' arguments on this score are misplaced being inconsonant with the law. The Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 is a juristic/legal person; distinct from its share-holders and Board of Directors. The natural persons holding shares as well as the Directorship of the said Company cannot be treated to be the same persons as an Incorporated Company. Meter bearing Account No. 35254009 i.e. (subject-matter of the present petition), is in the name of a private Limited Company which, for the purpose of obtaining the said connection, was represented by one Tanveer Rasool. Representation and signatures of Mr. Tanveer Rasool for and on behalf of the Company can at maximum make Mr. Rasool as an agent or representative of a legal person. The two separate entities do not get merged into each other. A legal person like a Company functions through its Directors, Managers, agents, representatives and employees; the natural persons., Under law, they continue to retain their respective independent identities and separate personalities. As to Tanveer lmran Cotton Ginning Factory, the holder of electric connection i.e. Account No. 13282002, the record and Certificate of the Income Tax Department show it to be a Partnership. A partnership registered under the Partnership Act cannot under law be termed to be the same person as a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. It is thus clear that two meters were obtained and functioning in two distinct names, who cannot be held to be one 'consumer' of WAPDA. They were two separate and independent consumers for all practical purposes including Section 24 of the Electricity Act. The mischief of Section 24(1) of Electricity Act could only be invoked if two separate meters installed at different premises were in the 'same name'. Section 24(1) supra clearly refers to distinction of names. Electricity, meters/accounts in the name of two different distinct legal persons or entities, therefore, cannot be clubbed together for the purposes of Section 24 of the Electricity Act.
Furthermore, natural persons, who are partners of a firm, can also independently be share-holders or Directors of a Company. They cannot be burdened with the personality of the Company to be responsible for its liabilities and vice versa. As such, respondents could not under law disconnect petitioner-company's electricity meter for the liabilities of a firm whose partners may be the share- holders of the Company as well.
The petitioner by an affidavit and even otherwise, has also claimed the two premises to be distinct though adjoining each other. It is also claimed that two meters were for supplying electricity to two different projects. The project Tanveer lmran Cotton Ginning Factory, admittedly in default, had since long been closed. Whereas, the petitioner i.e. Tanveer Rasool Roller Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited was in operation when its electricity was illegally disconnected by respondents. Nothing has been placed on record by respondents to show that two meters are installed ar one premises supplying electricity to the same project to attract adverse consequences of the nature allegedly claimed by WAPDA.
7. Arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding pendency of a civil suit, also do not help the case of WAPDA. The civil suit for perpetual injunction had become infructuous on disconnection of the meter. Even otherwise, on statement by the learned counsel for the petitioner for unconditional withdrawal of the suit duly recorded by the learned Civil Judge (on 4.8.2001) the claim of the petitioner in the suit stood withdrawn as has been held by the Sindh High Court at Karachi in the case of Dr. Graith Rashid Pharaon through Special Attorney v. BCCI through Joint Official Liquidator and 9 others (1999 YLR 1683) through the final disposal of the civil suit was yet to be ordered by the learned Civil Judge. Furthermore, law is well-settled in such matters that mere pendency of a civil suit cannot make a Constitutional petition unmaintainable, where patent illegality and invalidity of action has been challenged.
It is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner is neither a defaulter nor does the petitioner owe any other sum to WAPDA on any account. As such, accepting this petition, action of WAPDA disconnecting petitioner's electricity supply/connection bearing Account No. 27-5216-35254009 is held to be without lawful authority and of no legaleffect. Respondents are directed to forthwith restore the electricity supply and re-energize the meter, within a period of two days. The parties are left to bear their on costs.