This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos,7281 of 1993 and 7282 of 1993, as these are between the same parties and involved common question.
2. In Writ Petition No,7281 of 1993 in the bill dated 1-4-1990 a sum of Rs,25,20,097 was included as 50% slowness charges for the period of 6 of 1989 of 1990. In the other Writ Petition No,7282 of 1993 slowness charges in the bill dated 1-3-1990 were included. In both fixed charges for the period of load shedding were also included. These bills were challenged by respondent No,1 by way of separate petitions before the Electric Inspector. Both were contested by the petitioners. The Electric Inspector received the evidence of the parties. Parties choose to submit only the documentary evidence. Electric Inspector on his own directed submission of line losses statement were received as Exh.C/ 1 and Exh.C/2. After and discussing the evidence, the Electric Inspector accepted the claim of respondent No,1 and held that the petitioners had not been able to establish slowness of the meter. The bills in question were set aside. Petitioners filed appeals, which were also dismissed on 12-11-1992.
3. It is contended by Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents have acted incorrectly in not relying on documents Exhs.R/1 and R/6. These two documents are reports prepared by the officers of the petitioners as to the metering equipment installed at the, Grid Station. It was concluded that as the metering equipment, at the Grid Station was slow and the metering equipment at the factory premises of respondent No,1 gave the same reading, therefore, the metering equipment at the factory was also slow. Reports also dealt with the mechanism used for slowing down the meter. Ilyas Khan submits that merely because the consumer was not associated in the preparation of R/1 and R/6, these reports cannot be ignored.
The above arguments have been refuted by Muhammad Younis Chaudhry, learned counsel for respondent No,
1. He has submitted that the very basis of the slowness claim is illegal as a consumer is only charged on the basis of metering equipment installed at the premises of the consumer. In this case, he has argued that the metering equipment is in a room which is locked by the petitioners and the respondents had no excess to the same. In any case, according to Younis if the petitioners intended to conduct some exercise at the Grid Station, respondent ought to have been notified or associated with the exercise. For these reasons, it 'is claimed that documents R/1 and R/6 were rightly considered. having no good basis for the slowness claim. By relying on Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522) and Fateh Ali v. Province of Balochistan through Secretary, Health and others (1997 SCM R 1687) he has argued that High Court is not a Court of appeal and cannot appraise evidence to come to its own conclusion. It is argued that the conclusions of respondents Nos,2 and 3 even it incorrect, cannot be interfered with in Constitutional petitions.
4. The perusal of the orders of Electric Inspector and Advisory Board shows that these two statutory functionaries have passed elaborate orders giving reasons in support of the conclusions. The conclusions cannot be said to be perverse or illogical or such as could not have been arrived at. In fact, the respondent Board gave good reason, amongst other when it held that the metering equipmentof other two consumers being fed from the same feeder and similarly circumstanced, did not show any slowness. This reason has not been shown to be illogical in any manner. The Inspector as well as the Board did not place much reliance on Exhs.R- I and R-6 as the finding contained therein were recorded exparte without notifying the consumer. or associating it/him. It has. been held in Mian Muhammad Munir v. WAPDA and others (1983 CLC. 211) that in such B circumstances the exparte finding arrived at by the officers of WAPDA are illegal. Even if these may not be held as illegal but credibility of such exercises is reduced. Mr. Ilyas Khan has not been able to explain why a direct method to prove slowness has not been adopted. The metering equipment installed at the premises of respondent could have been sent to Laboratory for testing and report.
All the above consideration cannot be said to be irrelevant and if the statutory functionaries have on- the basis of above factors arrived at a conclusion, this Court can hardly interfere even if it was inclined to come to a different conclusion.
5. These two petitions are found without merit and are. hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.