Monday, 26 August 2013

Electricity is basic necessity and state is bound to provide it


PLJ 2011 Lahore 661
[
Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Tariq Javaid, J.
ABDUL GHANI--Petitioner
versus
SUB-DIVSIONAL OFFICER (E) MEPCO S/TOWN SUB-DIVISION, BUREWALA, DISTRICT VEHARI and 2 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 3259 of 2010, decided on 27.4.2010.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Disconnection the supply of electricity--Supply of electricity was basic necessities--Allegation of--Not paying for consumption of electricity--Request for electricity connection was refused--Validity--Under rule Reference No. 24 of Commercial Procedure no electricity connection could be provided to any person who was not owner of the property or in alternative who could not procure "NOC" from landlord as in the instant case, the petitioner was not owner of the property wherein connection was sought to be provided--No entitled to the same--Petition was allowed.           [P. 662] A
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 38--Basic necessity--Electricity--State is under obligatory to provide basic necessities of life to the citizens--Basic necessities of life had not been defined--Various basic necessities are enumerated in Art. 38(d) of Constitution which includes housing--It cannot be said that framers of Constitution envisaged housing without electricity, therefore, electricity supply is also a basic necessity--Petition was allowed.  [P. 664] B
Ch. Pervaiz Akhtar Gujjar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Zia Ullah Khan, Advocate along with Fayyaz Hussain, S.D.O WAPDA for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 27.4.2010.
Order
It is maintained that the petitioner is worker in Burewala Textile Mills and there is dispute going on between the Mill Management and labourers, due to that dispute electricity supply of the petitioner has been disconnected. In the previous round of litigation the respondents were directed to supply the electricity to the petitioner and charge him to the extent of his consumption but allegedly the respondents did not comply with the order and electricity of the petitioner has been disconnected.
2.  On the other hand, it is alleged that the petitioner is trespasser; that he has no right to be on the premises; he is in illegal occupation and is not entitled to the facility of electricity.
3.  Case has been heard at length and it is admitted to regular hearing and fixed for hearing for today.
4.  This case involves supply of electricity which is the basic necessity and the controversy between the petitioner and employer is subjudice before the appropriate forum. Allegedly the petitioner is trespasser and he has no right to remain on the premises but this does not authorize the respondents to disconnect electricity being supplied to the petitioner. However, taking lenient view the petitioner was advised in the previous round of litigation to seek his independent electricity connection for the reasons being that Mill Management/Respondent No. 3 was likely to raise objection that the petitioner was not paying for the consumption of electricity; therefore, the petitioner applied for electricity connection which has been refused by Respondents No. 1 & 2 on the pretext that under rule/Reference No. 24 of, the Commercial Procedure no electricity connection could be provided to any person who was not owner of the property or in the alternative who could not procure "No Objection Certificate" from the land lord as in the present case the petitioner is not owner of the property wherein connection is sought to be provided; therefore he is not entitled to the same. Reference No. 24 of the Commercial Procedure is re produced below:--
(i)         Ownership proof from the applicant
(ii)        An affidavit from the owner that no connection existed previously at the premises on which connection is applied and that he would pay Wapda dues in respect of the connection which already existed at the premises in question, if noticed here-after.
(iii)       "No Objection Certificate" from the land lord (if the applicant is a tenant along with land lord's proof of ownership, and affidavit mentioned above.
(iv)       Attested copies of National Identify Cards of the applicant and the witness.
(v)        The power of attorney (in case of a limited company), in favour of the applicant to the effect that the applicant is authorized to sign the application and execute agreement.
(vi)       In case of a Limited Company, the list of Managers, Directors etc. with complete addresses and attested photo copies of all documents regarding registration of the limited Company.
(vii)      In case of change of name/reconnection, a certificate from the Revenue Officer Wapda to the effect that no arrears are outstanding against the premises.
(viii)      In case of reconnection, affidavit from the applicant to the effect that he will be liable top pay all dues which would appear/come to light after issue of the certificate referred above.
5.  It appears that the interpretation given to Reference No. 24 by the respondents is violative of Article 38 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which is re-produced herein below, for facility of reference :--
38. The State shall
(a)        secure the well-being of the people, irrespective of sex, caste, creed, or race, by raising their standard of living, by preventing the concentration of wealth and means of production and distribution in the hands of a few to the detriment of general interest and by ensuring equitable adjustment of rights between employers and employees, and landlords and tenants;
(b)        provide for all citizens, within the available resources of the country, facilities for work and adequate livelihood with reasonable rest and leisure;
(c)        provide for all persons employed in the service of Pakistan or otherwise, social security by compulsory social insurance or other means;
(d)        provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief, for all such citizens, irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race, as are permanently or temporarily unable to earn their livelihood on account of infirmity, sickness or unemployment;
(e)        reduce disparity in the income and earnings of individuals, including persons in the various classes of the service of Pakistan; and
(f)        eliminate riba as early as possible.
6.  It is apparent from clause (d) of the above Article that the State is under obligatory to provide basic necessities of life to the citizens. The basic necessities of life have not been defined. Various basic necessities are enumerated in Article 38(d) which includes Housing. It cannot be said that the framers of the constitution envisaged housing without electricity; therefore, electricity supply is also a basic necessity. This appears to be a term of act. It had different meanings at different times. Facilities which were not basic necessities twenty years ago may very well in these days be basic necessities. Undoubtedly electricity is one of those. It could very safely be termed as basic necessity; therefore, Reference No. 24 of the Commercial Procedure merits to be struck down as it has been given an interpretation whereby a citizen is being denied the basic necessity. It is repugnant to the constitution. If a landlord or employer wants to eject any person from the property, under the law he is obliged to adopt legal procedure. If he is allowed to disconnect electricity then certainly he shall disconnect other facilities like water supply and natural gas and thus illegally evict the tenants from the rented premises. In other words whenever, a landlord or owner of premises wants to illegally evict the occupant he shall disconnect the supply of necessities and then refuse to issue "No Objection Certificate". By reason whereof the Respondents No. 1 & 2 shall also not supply the electricity to him. This cannot be allowed. No illegal interpretation can be placed on any instrument nor could any rule be allowed to remain operative which is open to malafide interpretation. This would tantamount to arming the landlord with a weapon which could easily be used against the tenant by disconnecting the electricity and forcing his illegal eviction without adopting proper procedure provided under the law. Even in this case Respondent No. 3 appears to have disconnected the supply of electricity to coerce the petitioner by denying the basic necessity and thus, force his eviction otherwise than the due process of law.
7.  For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed, respondents are directed to install electricity meter at the residence of the petitioner, restore his connection forthwith and consequently the Reference No. 24 of Commercial Procedure is struck down with no order as to costs.
(R.A.)  Petition allowed.