JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 7-11-2000 passed by learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the order dated 29-9- 1999 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that electricity connection of the petitioner's mill was disconnected in 1995. The petitioner being aggrieved challenged the disconnection order of electricity in Civil Court. The matter, however, was settled between the parties which culminated into a compromise. Subsequently a notice was issued to the petitioner under the provision as contained in section 26(5-A) read with section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner being aggrieved challenged the same by means of writ petition which has been rejected by means of order dated 29-9-1999 which was assailed by preferring I.C.A. Which too has been dismissed vide order impugned, hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. S.M. Tayyab, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner who mainly contended that the notice served upon the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and the service of detection bill amounting to Rs,48,31,895 issued on 18-3,1999 was also illegal as electricity supply was disconnected on 17-3-1999 at 7-30 p.m. It is urged emphatically that it is not the responsibility of petitioner to make the payment of electricity bill pertaining to the period when the alleged theft of electricity was discovered for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It is urged with vehemence that the learned High Court has erred while holding that the dispute in question relates to meter equipment's and thus recourse should have been made to the concerned forum available for the redressal of grievances .It is next contended that the learned High Court has ignored that the electricity supply was discontinued illegally on account of mala fide cognizance whereof could have been taken by the learned High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. It is argued that the amount of bill for dishonest abstraction and the method adopted could not be challenged in contemplation of section 26-A before the Electric Inspector whose main concern is to set electric appliances/meters in working condition by removing the fault, if any.
4. We have examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of the provisions as contemplated in sections 24 and 26-A of the Electricity Act, 1910. We have perused the order dated 29-9-1999 and order dated 7-11-2000 passed by learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court. The record of the case has been examined carefully. At the moment the petitioner is aggrieved from the notice dated 17-3-1999 which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- - "NOTICE The metering equipment installed at your premises under Ref. No,165400112008 was checked by a Committee 'of Engineers of LESCO Ltd. Accompanied with any Army Officer in attendance, on 25-1- 1999 and 11-2-1999; on both occasions 'in presence of Mr. Sardar Muhammad Akhtar, the General Manager (Technical) of your Mills. It was found out that there was a hole in the top cover of the anti-theft box; artificially closed by epoxy and a corresponding hole on top of KWH meter body was discovered directly above the 1000th figure on the register of the meter which also bore scratches on it. This clearly means that through these holes the register (figures) of the meters have been reversed. Therefore, you have committed violation of provisions of section 26(5-A) and also committed an offence under section 39 read with section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910. You are required to show cause, within 3 days, as to why you should not be charged a detection bill for dishonest abstraction of electric energy under provision of section 26-A of the Electricity Act, 1910 (without prejudice to the right of LESCO Ltd. For taking further action as due under the Said Act). In order to sieve the Department from further loss, the electric supply to your above stated premises has been discontinued. Executive Engineer LESCO (Rural) Division, Sheikhupura."
5. We have carefully gone through the contents of notice dated 17-3- 1999 as reproduced hereinabove whereby the petitioner was required to show cause within three days that as to why he should not be charged a detection bill for dishonest abstraction of electricity energy. A bare perusal of the notice would reveal that the entire controversy revolves qua the correctness of the metering equipment's which could not be resolved by the High Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction. The Committee of Engineers of LESCO found that there was a hole in the top cover of the empty theft box, artificially closed by depoxy and a corresponding hole on top of KWH meter body was discovered directly above the 1000th figure on the register of the meter which also bore scratches on it. Now here at this juncture the question arises that by whom the figures were reversed, who was the beneficiary, relevant period when the loss occurred, how much is the exact loss, why the faulty equipment's could not be substituted, initiation of action under section 26 (5-A) read with section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910 after out of the Court settlement dated 17-7- 1998, mechanism evolved for recording of figures of own choice and liability to be billed in such an eventuality under section 26-A of the Electricity Act, 1910, monitoring of consumption by means of TOD meter and subsequent objections in the said methodology in 1995, installation of TOD meters and responsibility for illegal abstraction of electricity by reversing the figure during the period of August, September, October and December, 1995 are the questions which being controversial cannot be adverted to by the High Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction. It is for the forums available in the hierarchy provided under the Electricity Act, 1910 to address all such questions by following the prescribed procedure after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Division Bench being well based does not call for any interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave declined.