' With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, this case is being treated and heard as a Pacca case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's mills premises was raided by WAPDA Authorities in the year 1997 and their electricity was disconnected and detection bill in the sum of Rs,3,60,77,676 was issued. The same was challenged before this Court through a writ petition which was not.
Pressed and the matter was taken up before the Electric Inspector who responded that he has no jurisdiction in the matter as the question. Relates to theft of Electricity and under section 26-A he has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. A writ petition was filed before this Court which was dismissed and the petitioner went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31-5-2001 referred the parties to the Chief Executive concerned.
The order is reproduced for ready reference: "During arguments it was agreed between the counsel for the parties that the appellant would be afforded opportunity to join the process of checking/examination of the electric meters and other relevant apparatus and then the matter will be resolved in accordance with law.
' Consequently, we dispose of these appeals in the above terms and direct the parties to appear before the Chief Executive concerned on 8-6-2001 who shall determine the dispute in accordance with law after associating both the sides with the process of checking the meter and other disputed apparatus and also giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Any party feeling aggrieved from the decision made by the Chief Executive, can redress his grievance in accordance with law."
3. Precise grievance being voiced through the instant writ petition is that the respondents are not proceeding in accordance with the direction contained in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31-5-2001 and any proceeding which was beyond the scope of said order be declared as illegal and without lawful authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court respondents are required only to decide the case in accordance with law. By this he means to proceed under section 26 of Electricity Act, i,e, matter in dispute should have been referred by the Chief Executive to the Electric Inspector for examination of meter in question; that the petitioner filed instant writ petition on 30-4-2002 and on the same day a restraint order was passed by this Court directing the respondents not to pass any final order in the matter but despite that the respondents had passed an order on 29-4-2002 by back dating the same as according to him no order was passed till this writ petition was filed in this Court on 30-4-2002. He has referred to the postal envelope through which order dated 29-4-2002 was sent to the petitioner. According to him this bears the stamp of WAPDA Authorities of 3-5-2002 meaning thereby that the said order was dispatched from the office of respondents on 3-5-2002 and not on 29-4-2002. It is further submitted with reference to letter dated 16-4-2002 addressed to the Manager of petitioner's mill that the time for submission of requisite clarification/comments by the petitioner has been extended up to 30-4-2002, therefore, till 30-4-2002 no decision could have been given by the respondents. It is further added in terms of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents were obliged to associate the petitioner for checking of meter and other apparatus but no body from the petitioner's side was associated, therefore, the proceedings held and conducted by the respondents are in violation of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is finally argued and suggested that any Electric Inspector or Board of Electric Inspectors at the costs of the petitioner may be deputed to examine the disputed meter.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents contends that since from the very beginning the dispute in the instant case relates to the theft of electricity as is evident from F.I.R.
No,254 of 1997 and also from the leave granting order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17-12- 1997 therefore, it is submitted that the case was not covered under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act; rather it fell under the provision of section 26-A of the Electricity Act, therefore, the services of Electric Inspector are not available in the instant case. It is further added that Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically referred the parties to the Chief Executive, MEPCO, he was to hear both i,e, the petitioner and WAPDA Authorities and render the decision in accordance with law and thus in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no question of referring the matter of involving the Electric Inspector in the instant case. It is further clarified that the decision in the instant case was rendered by Chief Executive, MEPCO on 29-4-2002 although it was dispatched on 3-5-2002 but delayed dispatch would not render the decision without lawful authority or by any means it cannot be said to be back dated. With reference to letter dated 16-4-2002 whereby it was intimated to the Manager of petitioner's mill that time for submission of comments has been extended to 30-4- 2002 it is submitted that since the comments of the petitioner's mill were received by the WAPDA Authorities on 27-4-2002, therefore, there was no need to further wait till 30-4-2002 to decide the matter. It is next contended that the meter in question was examined on the direction of Chief Executive, MEPCO in presence of both the parties, particularly Sardar Ali Shah, Fareed Ahmad Sheikh and Muhammad Iqbal from the petitioner's side on 12-12-2001 and 13-12-2001. It is finally submitted that under section 26-A of Electricity Act when the allegation of theft was levelled, no Electric Inspector can be associated for determination of the correctness or otherwise of the meter.
It is only functionary of the licensee i,e, the respondents who are entitled to examine the meter/apparatus, as such, offer being made by the petitioner to a point some Electric Inspector is not only illegal but is also not acceptable to the respondents.
6. I have considered the arguments of leaned counsel for the parties.
7. Before embarking upon other merits of the case it is to be seen that in the instant case the Chief Executive, MEPCO who was seized of the matter under the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court had given the decision oh 29-4-2002 i,e, one day before the institution of instant writ petition, Now it is to be seen whether this decision was an ante-dated decision or in fact the same was rendered on 29-4-2002. The respondents have now shown me and placed on record the receipt of Fax dated 29-4-2002 at 5-29 p.m. This message was dispatched to Fax No,061-539509. The petitioner has not disputed the correctness of the Fax number which relates to their mill. The Fax message sent is being alleged by the respondents, to be the order dated 29-4-2002 while on the other hand the respondents are not in a position to show as to what message was received at this precise time on their Fax Machine. The letter dated 16-4-2002 indicates that the petitioner was given time for the submission of comments up to 30-4-2002. Since the comments were submitted on 27-4-2002, therefore, there was no need for the respondents to further wait for the decision up to 30-4-2002.
Even otherwise if the order was dispatched by WAPDA Authorities on 3-5-2002, it would not prove that the decision was not given on 29-4-2002.
8. Since it is held that the decision was already taken and delivered by the Chief Executive on 29-4- 2002, therefore, this petition was infructuous from its very inception and the petitioner had his remedy elsewhere, and not before this Court. Though an application C.M. No,868/2000 the petitioner has sought amendment in his writ petition for the purpose of challenging the order dated 29-4-2002 but in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court reported in PLD 1995 Lahore 56 in my view the petitioner will have to approach the Civil Court challenging the above said order, as such, the C.M. Stands dismissed. So far as the deputing of Electric Inspector for re- examination of the meter is concerned, the allegation of theft has been levelled against the petitioner, therefore, in view of provision of section 26-A of Electricity Act, it is only the functionary of licensee who can examine and check the meter and not the Electricity Inspector, therefore, the offer made by the petitioner is not tenable. Since this petition is held to be infructuous, therefore, I would not like to further dilate upon any other issue in this petition.
9. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.