Haji Rabnawaz Vs Chief Engineer PESCO etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT D.I.KHAN BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No. 592-D of 2016

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing 16/08/2016

Appellant / petitioner (Haji Rab Nawaz ) by Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Khan advocate.

Respondent (Chief Executive PESCO & others) by Mr. Arif Rahim Ustrana advocate.

MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN J.- Having been refused interim relief by two Courts below, the present petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the impugned orders dated 03.06.2016 and

2.Record transpired that the parties are litigating since long and decrees have been passed against the respondents in certain cases of excessive billing. Both the impugned orders are contradictory to each other as the learned trial Judge vide order dated 03.6.2016 has directed the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount within ten days under the provisions of section 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910. On this

stipulation the learned trial Court has directed the respondents to restore the electricity of the premises of petitioner. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner challenged the order passed by learned trial Court in Civil Revision before learned District Judge, Tank, who too maintained the order of learned trial Court.

3.Arguments heard and record perused.

4.The learned counsel for petitioner produced PLD 2001 Lahore 31 in which his lordship has held that;

“The answer is no, because a consumer is only liable to pay what has been correctly and scientifically determined against him under the provisions of section 26-A and not based on mere sweet will of a local formation”.

5.As is evident from the bill for the month of March, 2016, the respondents themselves have made the payment disputed, so without first determining the actual outstanding amount as envisaged in the above said ruling, the respondents cannot ask the petitioner to deposit the amount adjudged by them against the petitioner on their own whims and wishes. It is for the Court to determine the actual amount due after recording pro and contra evidence.

6.In the instant case both the Courts below have relied upon section 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910. Though this section creates a bar for issuance of prohibitory order from disconnecting the supply to the premises without first asking the petitioner to deposit due amount within a period of thirty day, however, this section of law cannot be read in isolation.

7.As discussed above the amount

assessed against the petitioner has been made disputed by the respondents themselves, so unless it is determined finally, the provisions of section 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910 cannot be applied. In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed as prayed for. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit the current bill of consumed units regularly.

ANNOUNCED JUDGE

Aftab/*