PLJ 2010 Lahore
172
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.
Haji MAQSOOD AHMAD--Petitioner
versus
LESCO through its General Manager Lahore
and 3 others--Respondents
C.R. No. 1745 of 2009, decided on 22.10.2009.
Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 1910)--
----S. 24(1)--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S.
115--Civil revision--Discontinuance of supply to consumer neglecting to pay
charge--Electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected--Notice for a
detection bill was served--Challenge to--Determination--Whether Section 24(1)
of Electricity Act, is applicable to the case of the petitioner--Question
of--Where any consumer neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum
assessed against him by licensee in respect of supply of energy to his
premises, the licensee can disconnect the supply of energy to the consumer--In
the instant case the detection bill falls within the category of charge for
energy assessed by licensee--Held: Licensee has a right to disconnect
electricity if the consumer neglects to pay any charge for energy--Detection
bill had been served on the petitioner which was charge of energy assessed by
licensee--Impugned action/disconnection was fully covered u/Ss. 24(1), 26-A
& 54-C of Electricity Act--Courts below had rightly applied the provisions
of Electricity Act, and disallowed the interim relief to the
petitioner--Petition was dismissed. [Pp.
175 & 176] A & C
Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 1910)--
----Ss. 54(c) & 24(1)--Notice for detection bill was
served--Challenge to--Bar of jurisdiction--If a notice is served on the
consumer u/S. 24 (1) or if the supply of energy to the premises of the consumer
is discontinued under the provisions Electricity Act, no Court shall restore
supply of energy without the deposit of the assessed amount--Section 54-C, is
trigged not only by notice u/S. 24(1) but also for any other reason under the
Act, the supply of energy to the premises of the consumer are discontinued--Petition
was dismissed. [P. 175] B
Mr. Khalid Nawaz Ghuman, Advocate for Petitioner.
Syed Ali Raza Rizvi, Advocate for Respondents.
Rabyar, SDO, LESCO, Bilal Colony Sub-Division.
Date of hearing: 22.10.2009.
Order
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a
consumer of electricity enjoying an industrial connection tariff B2 from
Respondent No. 1. The said connection is for the steel manufacturing factory of
the petitioner situated at Momenpura, Lahore.
Respondents conducted a raid on the said factory on the basis of a report that
the petitioner was stealing electricity. An F.I.R. was lodged on 12.06.2009
against the petitioner and others and the electricity connection of the
petitioner was disconnected.
2. Thereafter on
14.07.2009 the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 24 of the
Electricity Act, 1910 for a detection bill in the sum of Rs. 14592448/- for the
period 01/08 to 05/09.
3. The petitioner
challenged the said notice through a suit for declaration and permanent
injunction. During the pendency of the suit the
petitioner moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 CPC praying
for ad-interim injunction i.e. restoration of electricity and restraining the
recovery of the detection bill. The said application was dismissed on
22.07.2009. Appeal preferred against the said order by the petitioner was also
dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 05.09.2009. The
petitioner has impugned the orders of the subordinate Courts in the instant
petition.
4. The main
argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that his case falls under Section
26-A of the Electricity Act and not under Section 24 and, therefore, Section
54-C of the Electricity Act does not apply, which pertains to the Bar of
Jurisdiction and provides that the entire amount assessed against the consumer
shall be deposited as a pre-requisite for restoration of the electricity. The
counsel further argued that the action of the respondents is unlawful and the
detection bill is absolutely illegal.
5. Counsel for the
respondents opposes the submissions of the petitioner and supports the orders
of the subordinate Courts.
6. Arguments heard
and record perused.
7. The only
question that surfaces for determination by this Court is whether Section 24(1)
of the Electricity Act, 1910 is applicable to the case of the petitioner. It
is, therefore, important to reproduce the relevant sections required for the
disposal of this petition.
"Section 24(1) Discontinuance of supply to consumer
neglecting to pay charge.--(1) Where any consumer neglects to pay any charge
for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, assessed against him by
a licensee in respect of supply of energy to his premises, (emphasis supplied)
the licensee may after giving not less than seven clear days notice in writing
to such consumer and without prejudice to his right recover such charge or
other sum by suit or otherwise, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or
disconnect any electric supply-line or other works, being the property of the
licensee, (emphasis supplied) through which energy may be supplied to such
premises or to any other premises, other than domestic premises, running
distinctly in the name of such consumer, and may discontinue the supply until
such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting
off and reconnecting the supply and the minimum charges on account of continued
reservation of supply during the period of such discontinuance, are paid, but
not longer.
(2) Where any difference or dispute as to any matter
connected with any charge or other sum included in the bill of a licensee has
been referred by a consumer under this Act to an Electric Inspector before the
notice as aforesaid has been given by the licensee, the licensee shall not
exercise the powers conferred by sub-section (1) until the Inspector has given
his decision."
"Section 26-A Dishonest abstraction or consumption
of energy.--Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 23, the licensee may
charge the consumer on the basis of one or more of the following considerations
for the amount of energy deemed to have been dishonestly abstracted, consumed
or used, for the period during which, the meter, maximum demand indicator or
other measuring apparatus had, in the opinion of the licensee, remained
disconnected, injured, altered or prevented from registering the amount of
energy supplied for the electrical quantity contained in the supply:--
(a) consumer's
connected load or maximum demand in kilowatt during any period;
(b) consumer's
maximum consumption of energy in kilowatt hours during any period;
(c) consumer's
load factor;
(d) the power factor of consumer's load;
(e) the hours and the time for which the energy is deemed to
have been abstracted, consumed or used by the consumer, and
(f) the purpose for which the energy is deemed to have been
abstracted, consumed or used by the consumer."
"Section 54-C Bar of Jurisdiction.--(1) Where a
licensee gives a notice referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 24 or
discontinues supply of energy to a premises under the provisions of this Act,
no Court shall make an order prohibiting the licensee form discontinuing supply
of energy to the premises, or requiring him to restore supply of energy to such
premises, and any such order made before the commencement of the Electricity
(Amendment) Ordinance, 1979, shall cease to have effect:
(2) Where an amount has been deposited under sub-section
(1), the Court shall direct it to be deposited in a scheduled bank in the name
of the licensee on an undertaking being furnished by the licensee to the effect
that in case the suit or appeal is decided against him, he shall repay the said
amount to the plaintiff or appellant, as the case may be, with such reasonable
returns as the Court may determine."
8. Section 24(1)
clearly states that where any consumer neglects to pay any charge for energy or
any sum assessed against him by licensee in respect of supply of energy to his
premises, the licensee may disconnect the supply of energy to the said
consumer. In the present case the detection bill falls within
the category of "charge for energy" assessed by the licensee.
9. The reference
to Section 26-A by the counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. The said
section deals with the computation of the detection bill and is not per-se a
recovery provision. In fact Section 26-A provides the parameters to work out
the charge of energy/detection bill in case the measuring apparatus in the
opinion of the licensee remained disconnected. Once the charge of energy is
calculated, Section 24(1) comes into play and so does Section 54-C of the Act.
10. The Section
54-C clearly states that if a notice is served on the consumer under Section
24(1) or if the supply of energy to the premises of the consumer is
discontinued under the provisions of the Electricity Act, no Court shall
restore supply of energy without the deposit of the assessed amount. Section
54-C, therefore, is trigged not only by notice under Section 24(1) but also for
any other reason under the Act the supply of energy to the premises of the
consumer are discontinued.
11. Reading of Sections 24(1),
26-A and 54-C of the Act show that the licensee has a right to disconnect
electricity if the consumer neglects to pay any charge for energy. In the
present case detection bill has been served on the petitioner which is charge
of energy assessed by the licensee and, therefore, the impugned
action/disconnection is fully covered under the said sections. Therefore,
the subordinate Courts have rightly applied the provisions of the Electricity
Act, 1910 and disallowed the interim relief to the petitioner. There is no
illegality or material irregularity noticed in the impugned orders.
12. For the above
reasons, this petition is dismissed.
(R.A.) Petition dismissed.
