PLJ 2010 Lahore 378
[Multan Bench Multan]
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Hafiz Abdul Rehman
Ansari, J.
MUHAMMAD ASLAM--Petitioner
versus
MEPCO etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 790 of 2009, decided on
20.1.2010.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199--Constitutional
petition--Electricity for tube-well--Mala fide
intention--Revised demand notice--Being an agriculture applied for electricity
connection for agricultural tube-well--Demand notice of two kinds were
deposited and electricity connection was supplied--MEPCO with malafide intention issued revised demand notice for
additional payment--Challenge to--Validity--Once the electricity connection was
sanctioned and issued demand notice for deposit of specific amount, after that
new demand for deposit of additional amount is highly excessive, harsh and
exorbitant for small agriculturist when this section of life is already in big
crises and on account of any omission or illegal act of the officials of WAPDA
the petitioner cannot be burdened without any lawful justification--Notice
issued by MEPCO for depositing of additional amount was declared to be illegal
and without lawful authority and same is struck down--Petition was allowed. [P. 380] A
2005 SCMR 1814 &
2000 SCMR 907, rel.
Mr. Khizar Hayat Khan Punian, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Mr. Ameer Aziz Qazi, Advocate for
Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20.1.2010.
Order
Petitioner Muhammad Aslam
son of Sardar Muhammad Afzal
has impugned through this Constitutional petition the demand notice dated
03.10.2006, issued by Respondent No. 4 Deputy Manager (Operations), MEPCO,
Division Rajanpur, calling upon the petitioner to
deposit the cost of transformer to be installed by the respondent MEPCO/WAPDA
for supply of electricity for tube-well to the petitioner.
2.
The petitioner being an agriculturist applied for electricity connection
for agricultural tube-well; Respondent No. 4 allowed the application and issued
demand notice of two kinds, one for Rs. 14,400/-, and
the other for Rs. 8000/-, which amounts were
deposited by the petitioner and he was supplied the electricity connection; the
petitioner continued irrigating his lands from tube-well for which he had got
sanctioned the electricity connection and he continued to pay electricity bills
and never defaulted. Copies of enormous electricity bills consumed by the
petitioner are appended with this petition.
3.
Respondent No. 4 allegedly with malafide
intention issued revised demand notice dated 03.10.2006 for additional payment
of
Rs. 1,77,300/-.
Rs. 1,77,300/-.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second demand
notice dated 03.10.2006 for deposit of Rs. 1,77,300/- is based on malafide.
Contended that at the time of sanction of connection of the electricity for the
tube-well the respondent WAPDA officials did not mention any such thing that
thereafter there will be further demand for deposit of Rs.
1,77,300/-.
5.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent MEPCO/WAPDA
submitted that tube-well connection to the petitioner was sanctioned on his
application made on 15.3.2003 from the village transformer in Jampur and was energized on 18.5.2006; the facility
regarding installation of tube-well connection from village transformer was
withdrawn vide authority Circular No. 132-45/D/G/DD/R CP) 58006 dated
11.3.2006; on withdrawal of the said facility, revised demand notice dated
30.10.2006 for the cost of transformer to the tune of
Rs. 1,77,300/- was issued to the petitioner/consumer. He made reliance on the cases reported as 2005 SCMR 1814 and Abdul Haque Indhar and others vs. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others (2000 SCMR 907).
Rs. 1,77,300/- was issued to the petitioner/consumer. He made reliance on the cases reported as 2005 SCMR 1814 and Abdul Haque Indhar and others vs. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others (2000 SCMR 907).
6.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
on account of the act of public functionaries or officials the petitioner
cannot be penalized. It was obligatory duty of MEPCO/WAPDA officials to check
each and every thing at the time of sanctioning of the electricity connection
and what were necessities which were required to be fulfilled by the consumers.
WAPDA Authorities executed an agreement with the petitioner. Now issuing of
fresh demand notice for deposit of Rs. 1,77,300/- is illegal, without jurisdiction and without
lawful authority.
7.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The stance
of the petitioner is correct. Once the electricity connection was sanctioned
and issued demand notice for deposit of Rs. 14,400/-
and Rs. 8000/-, after that new demand for deposit of Rs. 1,77,300/- is highly
excessive, harsh and exorbitant for a small agriculturist when this section of
life is already in big crisis and on account of any omission or illegal act of
the officials of Wapda the petitioner cannot be
burdened without any lawful justification. The notice dated 3.10.2006 issued by
the respondent MEPCO for deposit of Rs. 1,77,300/- is
declared to be illegal and without lawful authority and the same is struck
down. The respondents are further directed to continue supply of electricity to
the petitioner-consumer for his tube-well.
8.
With the above observation and direction this writ petition is allowed
with no order as to costs.
(R.A.) Petition
allowed.
