Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution petitioner sought a direction to restore the connection of the petitioner's Oil Mills without recovering any additional charges and the petitioner may be allowed to deposit Rs.1,60,258, the balance amount of the bill, in instalments.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was running Karman Wala Oil Mills, Mohallah Farid Nagar, Pakpattan Sharif after obtaining electricity connection from respondents. The sanction load of the Oil Mills was 64 K.W. And the respondents alleged that the load being used was 83.76 K.W hence issued notice in the year 1997 for the payment of the additional amount with a direction to the petitioner to get enhanced his load, The petitioner challenged this notice in the Civil Court and stay order was granted to the petitioner as the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.2,85,000 out of the total outstanding amount of Rs.4,85,258 and also gave a surety of Rs.2,66,258: Appeal was filed by the respondents against the stay order which was decided as compromise was arrived at between the parties and both the parties stated that they will be satisfied if the Electric Inspector visits the spot and decides about the load and according to the petitioner no illegality was found by the Electric Inspector. However, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 4-4-2000 and appeal was filed which was accepted and case was remanded vide order dated 14-6-2002 which hat not been decided so far and during its pendency the petitioner withdrew the application for stay on 9-3-2000. The petitioner's connection was disconnected and the material was taken away by the respondents. Now the petitioner has approached this Court that he is ready and willing to pay Rs.1,60,258 as an amount out of the total amount of Rs.2,60,258 which has already been paid by the petitioner on the undertaking by the respondents for restoring the electricity connection but he has also been directed to pay the reconnection charges. Parawise comments and report have been filed by the respondents in which they have raised number of objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition i.e. Due to the pendency of the civil suit, non-giving of the bill and not coming to the Court with clean hands. On merits it is stated that as the petitioner did not apply to the authorities for the reconnection of his electricity within 90 days hence he is bound to pay the estimated cost of Rs.2,10,000, security fee Rs.35,750, reconnection load fee Rs.2,500 alongwith the current bill of Rs.1,56,842. It is also averred that the Electric Inspector when visited the spot also found that the petitioner was using 78.76 K.W. Instead of sanction load of 64 K.W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner all contests that the demand of the respondent is illegal and unlawful and writ petition is liable to be accepted as no notice was issued under section 24 of the disconnection of the electricity to the petitioner and the respondent's action dated 9-3-2000 was illegal and unlawful.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for WAPDA has opposed this petition on the ground that the civil suit is already pending and the petitioner is bound to pay the charges of reconnection as the meter was disconnected in the year 2000 and petitioner never moved for the restoration of the same within the stipulated period of 3 months hence this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with this petition. I will not comment upon the disputed questions of fact regarding the use of the K.W. By the petitioner whether it was above the sanctioned load or not as the matter is already pending in the. Civil Court so that it may not prejudice the case of the petitioner or WAPDA in any manner.
However, the petitioner remained silent since 9-3-2000 after the disconnection of his meter and never had taken any plea for the restoration of the same as he did not feel it necessary for the restoration of the same. The petitioner claims that now the season is on which has started from March, 2002 and the petitioner wants to run the factory. As the petitioner remained silent for 2-1/2 years, writ petition is hit by laches and the petitioner on the other hand is bound to pay the reconnection charges according to the policy of the WAPDA who cannot be exempted from the payment of the reconnection fee and the charges merely on the ground that notice under section 24 of the Electricity Act was not issued to the petitioner and the matter between the petitioner and the WAPDA is already pending before the Civil Court but the, petitioner himself withdrew the application for the grant of stay and kepi silent for such a long period. He is bound to pay the reconnection charges, hence prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed. However the petitioner claims that he has already deposited Rs.80,000. If he approaches the concerned authorities, the respondents are directed to return the said amount within 7 days. The petitioner can also settle the dispute with the concerned authorities.
This petition is disposed of.