PLJ 2012 Lahore 751 (DB)
Present:
Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan and Shahid
Waheed, JJ.
Haji MUHAMMAD
LATIF--Appellant
versus
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
GEPCO, GUJRANWALA
and 3 others--Respondents
I.C.A. No. 985
of 2010, heard on 18.9.2012.
Punjab Private Housing
Schemes and Land Sub-Division Rules, 2010--
----Scope--Law
Reforms Ordinance, 1972, S. 3--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 25 &
199--Intra Court Appeal--Non-providing electricity connection being owner of
land was in process of developing housing colony by constructing small
houses--Discriminatory treatments--Violation of fundamental rights--Sought
direction for providing electricity connection to four residential
units--Fulfilled pre-requisite installation of new domestic electricity
connection--Validity--Plea for declining electricity connection to appellant,
was devoid of any merit and substance--Appellant being owner of land can
neither develop a housing scheme nor can get it approved from TMA as
accordingly to provisions of Rules, 2010, no housing colony or society can be
launched at a land less than 100 kanals area--GEPCO
could not require appellant to first get housing scheme approved by TMA--Land
of appellant did not fall in housing scheme or colony and therefore, appellant
was entitled to get electricity connection--Electricity poles, main lines and
other allied equipments were available at site and electricity connection can
be provided to appellant--Refusal of GEPCO to provide electricity to appellant
was not only violative of Art. 25 of Constitution but
also against policy of GEPCO--Electricity was a basic necessity of life and in
such age of science and technology no one can lead a conducive life and play
effective role in the society without electricity--Denial of electricity
connection to appellant was violation of fundamental right and GEPCO had failed
to furnish any reasonable explanation for not providing electricity connection
to appellant--Appeal was allowed. [Pp.
753 & 754] A, B, C & E
Constitution of Pakistan,
1973--
----Art. 9--No
person can be deprived of his life save in accordance with law. [P. 754] D
Mr. Amjad Ali Sherazi, Advocate for
Appellant.
Mr. Aurangzeb Mirza, Advocate for Respondents.
Date of hearing:
18.9.2012.
Judgment
Shahid Waheed, J.--The appellant, Haji
Muhammad Latif, through this Intra Court Appeal under
Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, has called in question order
dated 4.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chamber whereby the
appellant's W.P. No. 4904-2010 was dismissed.
2. The appellant moved this Court through
constitutional petition, that is, W.P. No. 4904/2010 seeking a direction to the
respondents for providing electricity connection to his four residential
houses/units and pleaded therein that he had fulfilled the prerequisites for
installation of four new domestic electricity connections vide Applications No.
4913 to 4916 dated 20.5.2009. In response to notice, the respondents entered
appearance and filed parawise comments wherein it was
stated that electricity connection would be provided to the appellant after the
approval of electrification scheme for the whole area as per Rules and Policy
of the GEPCO.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 4) vide Memo. No. 1307 dated
23.5.2009 forwarded the appellant's Applications No. 4913 to 4916 to the
Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 3) for sanction of electricity connection.
The Executive Engineer returned the applications to the Sub-Divisional Officer
and sought his clarification as to whether the connections were not being
processed for a new housing scheme. Consequent upon the above said query, the
Sub-Divisional Officer deputed the Line Superintendent/Incharge
of Feeder for site inspection. The Line Superintendent after making due inquiry
and site inspection submitted report stating therein; (i)
that building plans are sanctioned from TMA and constructions are in progress
in open area; (ii) that in front of construction three connections have already
been provided to one Muhammad Imran Arif; and (iii) that TMA has not mentioned any remark on
the building plans and, therefore, it is not clear whether these plans are of
colony or not. This report was sent to the Executive Engineer vide Letter No.
1487 dated 12.6.2009. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer alongwith
the Sub-Divisional Officer and Line Superintendent visited the site. During
inspection the appellant assured the Executive Engineer that his four houses
did not fall in a colony and also undertook that if subsequently the area was
found to be in a colony then he would pay all charges of the department. Memo. No. 2110 dated 6.8.2009 bear
out the above facts but all in vain. Finally, a legal notice dated 10.9.2009
was served upon the Executive Engineer but it could not evoke a favourable response and the Executive Engineer vide Memo.
No. 13305-07 dated 26.9.2009 asked the appellant to provide site-plan of the
housing scheme for electrification of whole area. In this perspective learned
counsel for the appellant contends that the respondents by misconstruing the
area as colony; misunderstanding the provisions of law; treating the appellant
discriminately; and, without any justification are not providing electricity
connection to the appellant which is violative of his
fundamental rights.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the
respondents contends that appellant has an area of about 26 Kanals
over which the appellant has developed a residential colony and presently he
has completed four house and the construction of
remaining area is at initial stage of excavation and foundation. Learned
counsel for the respondents further submits that appellant would be provided
electricity connection after the approval of electrification scheme for the
whole area as per GEPCO.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. The respondents are not providing electricity
connection to the appellant on the pretext that appellant being an owner of
land measuring 26 kanals is in the process of
developing a housing colony by constructing small houses and in this background
they have required the appellant to first get the colony approved from the
concerned TMA and then seek sanction of electrification scheme for the whole
area/colony as per policy of GEPCO. we are afraid, the
above said plea for declining electricity connection to the appellant, is
devoid of any merit and substance. Pakistan Water and Power Development
Authority vide Memo. No. 7110-2/GMO/DHQ dated 1.11.2001 communicated to all
Chief Executive Officers, DISCOs (including GEPCO) the following policy for
provision of electricity to housing scheme:--
"The issue
was discussed in Chairman's Monthly conference of CEOs dated 25-26 October,
2001 and it was decided that provision of electricity to Housing Society(ies) registered with
Registrar Cooperative Societies and those approved by Development Authorities,
irrespective of size of the Society(ies) will be
governed by the Policy for Electrification already circulated vide this office
No. 567-80/GMO/PA dated 21st April, 2001."
The appellant
being owner of land measuring 26 kanals can neither
develop a housing scheme nor can get it approved from the concerned TMA as
according to provisions of the Punjab Private, Housing Schemes and Land
Sub-Division Rules, 2010 no housing colony or society can be launched at a land
less than 100 kanals area. In these circumstances the
respondents cannot require the appellant to first get the housing scheme
approved by the TMA. The area/ land of the appellant does
not fall in a housing scheme or colony and, therefore, the appellant is
entitled to get electricity connection.
7. Besides above, the action of the respondents
is discriminatory. Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973 abhors discriminatory treatments. The Sub-Divisional Officer in
his Letter No. 1487 dated 12.6.2009 has admitted that in front of the houses of
the appellants, three electricity connections have been provided to one
Muhammad Imran Arif. It
means that electricity poles, main lines and other allied equipments are available
at site and electricity connection can be provided to the appellant. In this
scenario, the refusal of respondents to provide electricity to appellant is not
only violative of Article 25 (supra) but also against
the policy of GEPCO.
8. According to Article 9 of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 no person can be deprived of his life save
in accordance with law. The expression "life" does not mean physical
existence but it means enjoyment of all facilities which enable a person to lead
a life in a graceful and dignified manner. Electricity is a basic necessity of
life and in this age of science and technology no one can lead a conducive life and play effective role in the society
without electricity. The denial of electricity connection to the appellant is a
violation of fundamental right and the respondents have failed to furnish any
reasonable explanation for not providing electricity connection to the
appellant.
9. In view of above, this appeal is allowed,
order dated 4.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge-in-chamber in W.P. No.
4904/2010 is set aside and the respondents are directed to provide electricity
connection to the appellant within a period of one month. No order as to costs.
(R.A.) Appeal allowed
