Before the Electric Inspector, Govt.

of the Punjab,
Multan Region, Multan.

Gulistan Textile Mills Vs. MEPCO Ltd. etc.

Petition under section 38 of R.G.T.D. of

Electric Power Act, 1997 and section 24
of the Electricity Act, 1910, against
wrong and illegal electric energy bill of
huge amount of Rs. 10,79,625/- on
account of difference of tariff “B-3” &
“H” with retrospective effect against
account No. 5325-01826009/H (Housing
Colony of the Mills).

Intentional creating of hindrances in the

course of justice by respondents.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the petitioner has to invite the kind attention of this
Hon’ble Forum towards creating intentional hindrances to
linger on the case just to gain time under some ulterior
motive, which is detrimental for the ends of justice. In order
to highlight the conduct of respondents during whole the
previous proceedings to point out how have they been
delaying and causing hindrance under malafide intention,
detailed report is attached as Annex “A”.

2. That as per details given in Annex “A”, it may kindly be seen

that since the submissions of preliminary objection of power
of attorney of petitioner, the respondents are delaying under
one pretext or the other, which is briefly narrated in the
following paras.
3. That the respondents submitted preliminary objections on
20.7.2001. The petitioner submitted written reply on next date
of hearing i.e. 3.8.2001, but none from MEPCO attended this
Hon’ble Forum on the said date and the case was adjourned to
30.8.2001.

4. That Mr. Abdul Mateen X.E.N. MEPCO Vehari, (respondent

No. 3) and Mr. Abdur Rauf S.D.O. MEPCO (respondent No.
4) attended the proceedings on 30.8.2001. Copy of the written
reply submitted by the petitioner was supplied to the
respondents and the issue of power of attorney was discussed
in detail. Consequently, the respondents No. 3 & 4 were
directed to submit written reply to the main petition on
15.9.2001, meaning thereby that the objection was over-ruled.

5. That the respondents did not comply with the orders of this
Hon’ble Tribunal on 15.9.2001 and 2.11.2001. The counsel
for the petitioner pointed out the willful neglect and deliberate
disregard of the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal and also
requested that right of respondents to defend the case may be
struck off as per provisions of law.

6. That this Hon’ble Tribunal took due notice of the request of

petitioner’s counsel and directed vide No. 12264-67 dated
7.11.2001 to submit written reply to main petition.

7. That the respondent No. 3 submitted written reply to main

petition on 16.11.2001 and next date for hearing both the
parties was fixed for 3.12.2001, but due to non-cooperative
behaviour of the respondents, the case could not be discussed
on 3.12.2001 & 28.12.2001.

8. That on 18.1.2002, the petitioner’s counsel was at a loss to

understand the demand of respondent No. 3 that he was still in
need of written reply to preliminary objection raised by him,
although the same had already been delivered to him and
point had already been settled. So much so, the written reply
to main petition had also been submitted by the respondents.
9. That it is not understood why the respondents No. 3 is
adamant to dictate this Hon’ble Forum to act upon his advice
and carry out proceedings according to his sweet will. In the
humble opinion of the petitioner, the act and conduct of
respondent No. 3 is against the decorum of the court, against
the honour and dignity of the court for which the petitioner is
constrained to request this Hon’ble Tribunal to kindly take
notice of it for appropriate action as deemed fit.

10. That the comments on the written reply to the main petition
will be given while oral discussion on the next date of
hearing.

PRAY: -

In light of the above submissions, it is humbly

prayed that respondents may not be allowed to play foul
anymore to create hindrances in the course of justice.

It is further prayed that the matter may kindly be

resolved in the light of relevant prevailing laws at an
early date to meet the ends of justice as JUSTICE
DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.

Petitioner,

Dated: _________

Through: -

Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem,

Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
 Brief statement in respect of
proceedings held before the Hon’ble
Tribunal of Electric Inspector, Multan
in case “Gulistan Textile Mills Vs.
MEPCO etc.”

a) The petition was filed on 9.5.2001, stay order was granted on

the same day and next date for submission of written reply
was fixed for 18.5.2001.

b) On 18.5.2001, respondents No. 3 & 4 attended the Hon’ble

Forum and case was adjourned to 2.6.2001, on the request of
respondents for submission of written reply.

c) On 2.6.2001, none from MEPCO (respondents) was present

and the case was adjourned to 15.6.2001.

d) On 15.6.2001, the respondents No. 3 & 4 attended the

Hon’ble Forum. The case was adjourned to 27.6.2001 on the
request of respondetns for submission of written reply. The
counsel for the petitioner protested against intentional delay in
submission of written reply.

e) On 27.6.2001, petitioner’s counsel attended the Hon’ble

Forum, but none from MEPCO (respondents) attended this
Hon’ble Forum. The case was adjourned to 6.7.2001.

f) On 6.7.2001, the counsel for the petitioner appeared before

this Hon’ble Forum, but none from respondents attended. The
Hon’ble Forum took serious notice of it and ordered to issue
notice to respondents to submit written reply on 20.7.2001
and in case of failure to do so, ex-parte action on merit was to
be taken.

g) On 20.7.2001, respondent No. 4 submitted reply, but it was

just a preliminary objection regarding power of attorney of
petitioner’s manager but reply to main petition was not
submitted. The case was adjourned to 3.8.2001.
h) On 3.8.2001, the petitioner’s counsel submitted written reply
to preliminary objections, but none from respondents was
present. The case was adjourned to 30.8.2001.

i) On 30.8.2001, the respondents No. 3 & 4 attended the

Hon’ble Forum. Copy of written reply to preliminary
objections was delivered to respondents and issue was
discussed in detail. The respondents were directed to submit
written statement to main petition by the presiding officer of
the Hon’ble Tribunal, but since then the needle is playing in
the same groove; and after a long spell of 166 days, the
respondent No. 3 insisted to get written reply of the
preliminary objections once again.

The report is submitted leaving the matter upto

this Hon’ble Tribunal as everything regarding the
conduct of both the parties is clear to this Hon’ble
Tribunal from 9.5.2001 todate and needs no comments
by the petitioner.

Petitioner,

Through Counsel
 Before the Electric Inspector, Govt. of the Punjab,
Multan Region, Multan.

Gulistan Textile Mills Vs. MEPCO Ltd. etc.

Petition under section 38 of the

R.G.T.D. of Electric Power Act,
1997 and 24 of the Electricity Act,
1910, against wrong and illegal bill
of huge amount of Rs. 1,079,625/-
on account of difference of Tariff
“B-3” & “H” with retrospective
effect, without any lawful authority
against A/c No. 5325-01826009/H
(Housing Colony of the Mills).

Comments/arguments in rebuttal of
respondent’s written reply, on
behalf of petitioner.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That para No. 1 needs no comments.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 are not correct, hence not
admitted. The petitioner has stated the real facts and
truth. The petitioner did apply for electric connection for
Housing Colony for a load according to proposed plan,
but construction plan of colony was postponed later on as
already explained in para No. 2 of the petition. In view of
the prevailing situation at that time, amount of demand
notice issued by respondents was not deposited as
electric power was not required due to non-existence of
Housing Colony. So far as the respondents’ blame of
 concocted story is concerned, it is submitted that copy of
letter No. 1530 dated 23.8.2001 with its ecnlosure, issued
by respondent No. 4 may kindly be perused (Annex “A”).
It may be noticed specifically that no hearing took place
on 17.8.2001. Evidently, an absolutely false story was
concocted by respondents, which is sufficient to prove
the malafide conduct of respondents and to determine
who concocts the stories.

3. That the reply to para No. 3 is not correct. Actually the

facts stated by the petitioner cannot be refuted by the
respondents.

4. That the reply to para No. 4 is not correct. As admitted by

the respondents, the petitioner had applied for electric
connection on 21.10.95, just to satisfy the demand of
respondents to maintain good relations/terms between the
lisencee and consumer, otherwise there was no need of
electricity for another two years as the construction work
was still being carried out at that time. Even, construction
work of Housing Colony is still in progress. A number of
residential units are still lying incomplete/not ready or
suitable to be occupied for residence. This fact can be
verified at site by physical visit, if deemed fit by this
Hon’ble Forum. It is further added that the petitioner
applied on the immense/stressed demand of respondents
for electric supply to Housing units on 21.10.95 and the
electric connection was supplied by respondents on
8.11.97, after two years. Had the petitioner been using
the electricity for Housing Colony through Industrial
connection (B-3), the respondents must have supplied
connection under tariff “H” at the earliest. The X.E.N.
(respondent No. 3) had been visiting the premises every
month regularly for recording readings of Industrial
connection. He must have seen and satisfied that there
was no such use of electricity and no such action was
 taken by the respondents. Even otherwise, there is not a
single example that the respondents started charging
billing from the date of submission of application by a
prospective consumer for electric connection instead of
date of connection of supply.

5. That the reply to para No. 5 is incorrect and not admitted.

It is absolutely false and concocted story. In order to
understand the facts, sub-para (f) under GROUNDS of
the written reply is to be read in conjunction with this
para. The respondents have admitted that these two
meters were not installed by WAPDA/MEPCO (as the
case may be) whereas in the F.I.R. No. 301/95 dated
15.12.95 (copy is Annex “B”), the respondents claimed
that meters were property of WAPDA, which have been
stolen by the petitioner. The respondents have further
mentioned that there was no legal position of those
meters, so WAPDA did not issue any bill against those
meters. The respondents are stating two different things
in one and the same breath. The respondents have stated
that there was no legal position of those meters.
Secondly, those meters were the property of WAPDA,
then, why F.I.R. was not lodged on 13.8.95, when the
X.E.N. (respondent No. 3) who is a qualified engineer/a
grade-18 officer of WAPDA/MEPCO and not an ordinary
layman, had observed (the so-called imaginary meters),
installed at site. Why did he wait for 3/4 months and took
no such notice before 15.12.95? It is not understood that
the X.E.N. (respondent No. 3) recorded readings for
months together but bills were not issued? It can be said
very safely that meters must have been in the possession
and custody of respondents and readings and other
particulars of those meters were available with them to
prepare the data as provided in para No. 5 of their written
reply. It is on record that the F.I.R. was cancelled by the
competent court (Special Magistrate WAPDA, Multan)
 on submission of challan after thorough investigation by
Police and duly recommended by the said agency. In this
respect, a case reported in PLD 1987 S.C. 145 is referred
wherein it was held “what is made conclusive is decision
of court and not the reasoning.” So, the contention of
respondents cannot be admitted. It is crystal clear that
neither theft of meters was established nor the
unauthorised use of electricity was proved.

6. That para No. 6 is incorrect and needs no further

comments.

7. That the para No. 7 is not admitted being incorrect.

Actually, construction work of the Housing Colony is the
main factor to ascertain the demand and use of electricity
in Housing Colony. Work of construction was
incomplete, houses in such condition could not be
occupied for residential purpose. Consequently, electric
supply was not needed. However, limited demand was
met with private generating sets. It is, therefore, once
again reiterated that there existed no residential colony in
1987 as it exists now. There are still a number of
incomplete houses lying vacant not ready and suitable for
residence. As already requested, this fact can be verified
at site.
GROUNDS
a) That the reply to sub para (a) is incorrect. Nobody
is above law. The WAPDA/MEPCO i.e. lisencee
can issue bills within four-corners of law. The
following reference will support the plea of
petitioner: -

(i) In this respect a case “PLD 2001 Lhr. 31” is

referred wherein it is held, “consumer is not liable
to pay any such dues which are based on mere
sweet will of a local formation”.
(ii) In another case KLR 1989 Civil cases Lhr 556,
held that the delay of six years in raising demand
by the respondents was a factor, which should have
been considered with care and caution.” It may be
noted that the respondents have made illegal
demand in the instant case after more than ten
years as per their so-called fake/bogus claim.

(iii) Another case KLR 1987 CC 538 (Lhr), his

lordship Mr. Justice Falak Sher (J), has opined in
concluding para at page 541 that there should be
an independent forum, in the nature of respondent
forum, in the nature of respondents No. 1 & 2) for
resolution of differences and disputes on account
of billing by petitioner (WAPDA), otherwise, the
Society would be exposed to its arbitrariness,
leaving consumer with the only choice to like it or
lump it, which would inevitably further encourage
corruption in the petitioner’s department the
magnitude of which is not beyond reasonable
comprehension to comprehend.

(iv) Moreover, in a complaint case No. L/335/91,

L/35/91 (R) in L/7535/90 (Annex “C”), the
Hon’ble Wafaqi Mohtasib has also discussed the
arbitrary character of WAPDA officers and ordered
as under: -

“It has been repeatedly held that no retrospective

effect whatsoever can be given to the punishment
to be awarded. WAPDA, despite our repeated
orders followed the same practice which amounts
to vitimization and harassment to the consumers
and WAPDA insists to continue their illegal
arbitrary behaviour despite the fact that it has been
pointed out to them repeatedly. WAPDA can if
 they so desire charge it prospectively and not with
retrospective effect.”

From above submissions, this Hon’ble

Forum can well-judge whether the respondents
have unlimited and un-fettered powers to violate
the law or otherwise.

(b) The reply to sub para (b) is incorrect and not

admitted. The requisite notice as per law was not
issued and served upon the petiioner.

(c) That the reply to sub para (c) is incorrect. Had the
respondents been not satisfied and had any valid
claim at that time, they must have proceeded to
demand at that time and in case of non-compliance
disconnect the supply of petitioner as they had now
been threatening during the course of proceedings
before this Hon’ble Forum.

(d) That the reply to sub para (d) is incorrect. In this

connection, copy of order of Hon’ble Wafaqi
Mohtasib has already been attached as Annex “C”.

(e) That reply to sub para (e) is also incorrect and

based on high headedness of respondents. A case
law “NLR 1982 Civil 663 is quoted here wherein it
was held, “WAPDA could not ignore or violate law
and become judges in their own cause to deprive
the consumer of his right under section 24.”

(f) That the reply to sub para (f) is incorrect and not
admitted. The details have been discussed in reply
to para 5 above.

(g) That the reply to para (g) is not admitted being

incorrect. This may kindly be considered in view
of facts explained in above submissions.
 GENERAL: -
i) As per submissions of petitioner in his
petition, he had been meeting his limited demand
through generator sets, the tariff “H” was not
applicable to him unless he applied for connection
for Housing Colony. Para No. 2 of the special
conditions of supply under tariff “H” is referred for
kind perusal, which reads as under: -
ii) From the perusal of F.I.R. (Annex “B”), it
can be seen that respondents lodged F.I.R. on
15.12.95. The case remained under investigation
till the submission of challan on 28.1.1997, and
ultimately it was cancelled on 12.2.1997. It is
sufficient to prove beyond any shadow of doubt
that electricity was not used for residential colony
uptill 8.12.1997 as the accused/petitioner could
never think to repeat the same offence for which he
was facing investigation, otherwise he could have
been entrapped by the respondents as allegations
could be proved against him in view of facts on the
ground.
It is therefore, humbly prayed that disputed
bill amounting to Rs. 10,79,635/- may kindly be
declared wrong, illegal, unjustified and not payable
by the petitioner.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum
deems fit may also be granted in the interest of
justice.
Counsel for Petitioner,
Dated: ___________

Muhammad Ashraf Nadim Sabri,

Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
 Before the Electric Inspector, Govt. of the Punjab,
Multan Region, Multan.

Gulistan Textile Mills, Samma Satta District, Bahawalpur,

through Nasir Shehzad, Commercial Manager.
……PETITIONER
VERSUS

1. Multan Electric Supply Company Ltd. Khanewal Road, Multan,

through its Chief Executive at Multan.

2. Superintending Engineer, MEPCO Ltd., Bahawalpur Circle,

Bahawalpur.

3. Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd. Bahawalpur Division,

Bahawalpur.

4. Revenue Officer, MEPCO Ltd. Bahawalpur Division,

Bahawalpur.

……RESPONDENTS

Petition under section 38 of R.G.T.D. of

Electric Power Act, 1997 and sections
24 & 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910,
against charging of wrong, unjustified
and illegal electricity bills in respect of
A/c No. 5413-1027300-2/B-3, on the
basis of readings recorded on the
defective T.O.D. meter which had
reverted to a default demand program
since the date of its installation.
Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated

under laws of Pakistan under the name and style of Gulistan
Textile Mills Ltd. Samma Satta District, Bahawalpur. The
present petition is being filed by the company through Mr.
Nasir Shehzad, Commercial Manager, who is well conversant
with the facts of the case and duly authorised in this regard.

2. That the petitioner company is a bonafide consumer of the

respondents under reference No. 27-5413-1027300-2/B-3,
using electricity for operating a textile unit at Samma Satta.

3. That the petitioner had always paid the electricity bills within
due date. Even the known incorrect, wrong and illegal
electricity bill for the month of 4/2002 has been paid well in
time, but under protest. (Copy is Annex “A”).

4. That before making the payment of the bill for the month of
4/2002 it was made clear to the respondents No. 2 to 4 that
defective T.O.D. meter may be changed immediately to avoid
further complications. It was also requested that accounts may
be over-hauled to refund/adjust the excess charged amount
from petitioner due to defective behaviour of T.O.D. meter
and correct figures may kindly be obtained from the log sheets
of Samma Satta Grid Station in respect of independent
Gulistan Textile Feeder, but the respondents have not given
positive response so far. Rather, the respondents have issued
another wrong, unjustified and illegal bill for the month of
5/2002, amounting to Rs. 15,65,700/- on the basis of readings
recorded by the same defective T.O.D. meter, which has been
declared defective on 11.4.2002 by the Standing Committee
of MEPCO comprising of the following high ranking officers:

i) Superintending Engineer, Bahawalpur Circle,

Bahawalpur.
ii) Regional Manager, M & T, II Region, Multan.
iii) Circle Manager, M & T Circle Bahawalpur.
 iv) X.E.N. Operation, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur.

5. That the petitioner company has tried its level best to get the
matter settled amicably, but the respondents seem to be
adamant to recover the wrong, unjustified and illegal bills
through coercive measures, neglecting the findings of
standing committee of MEPCO’s own officers.

6. That a copy of relevant page No. 4 of the repot of Standing

Committee is attached as Annex “C” for kind perusal of this
Hon’ble Tribunal, which clearly indicates that the claim of the
petitioner is genuine and based on facts as the consumptioin
of peak hours of only 4 hours duration is much more as
compared to consumption of off peak hours with 20 hours
duration.

7. That it is also on the record as well as in the knowledge of the

respondents that proper record of meter reading of
independent Gulistan Textill Mills Feeder is available at
Samma Satta Grid Station and consumption of peak hours and
off peak hours can easily be worked out/assessed with the
help of log sheets. In this way, justice will be done to both the
parties. The petitioner will pay for the actual amount of
energy amount and the respondents will not suffer any loss if
accounts are revised/settled on the basis of record available in
the shape of log sheets at Grid Station, Samma Satta.

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the

respondents may be directed: -

i) Not to recover the wrong, illegal and unjustified

bill amounting to Rs. 15,65,700/- from the
petitioner as the same is based on reading
recorded by an admittedly defective T.O.D.
meter.

ii) Not to disconnected the supply of petitioner Mills

on account of non-payment of impugned bill for
 the month of 5/2002 and further bills if issued on
the basis of readings recorded by defective meter.

iii) To install healthy T.O.D. meter immediately to

avoid further complication in future and also
over-haul the accounts on the basis of readings
recorded by healthy meter installed at Samma
Satta Grid Station on the independent Gulistan
Textile Mills Feeder as per hourly reading data of
log sheets, since 21.2.2000, the date of
installation of defective T.O.D. meter at the
Mills.

Petitioner,
Dated: 24.5.2002

Through: -
M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
 Before the Electric Inspector, Govt. of the Punjab,
Multan Region, Multan.

Gulistan Textile Mills Samma Satta Vs. MEPCO etc.

Petition under section 38 of the R.G.T.D.

of Electric Power Act, 1997 and sections
24 & 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910.

WRITTEN REPLY to application of

respondents dated 24.6.2002.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the respondents have filed this application under

malafide intention just to delay the proceedings. The
respondents were required to submit written reply to the
petition on 7.6.2002, but they requested for adjournment.
Again they requested for adjournment on 15.6.2002 and the
case was fixed for 21.6.2002, but the respondents did not
submit written reply on 21.6.2002 and have submitted the
application raising the point of jurisdiction without quoting
any solid or reasonable reference. The respondents insisted for
discussion on the point of jurisdiction on 24.6.2002. The
request of respondents was acceded to, but on 24.6.2002, the
respondents again requested to adjourn the case as they were
not prepared to discuss the issue of jurisdiction. However, the
case was adjourned to 6.7.2002, on the request of respondents
with direction to petitioner’s counsel for submission of written
reply to application. The respondents need to be discouraged
for their negative tactics to delay the proceedings and the
 application is liable to be rejected, if they fail to argue on
6.7.2002.

2. That, as a matter of fact, the respondents should have

submitted written reply to petition well in time as this Hon’ble
Tribunal has to decide the dispute within a short period of 90
days. The point of jurisdiction is raised by way of preliminary
objection, while submitting written reply to petition and not in
such a dictating way that point of jurisdiction should be
decided first and then reply to petition will be given. In the
humble opinion of petitioner, it is deliberate disregard of the
directions of this Hon’ble Tribunal. As narrated above, the
respondents themselves do not want to discuss point of
jurisdiction as is apparent from their behaviour, hence,
application of respondents is liable to be rejected.

ON FACTS: -
1. That the petition has been filed under section 38 of R.G.T.D.
of Electric Power Act, 1997 and sections 24 & 26 of the
Electricity Act, 1910.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 are incorrect, hence not

admitted. This Hon’ble Tribunal is fully competent to
adjudicate such matters under the laws, quoted in the title of
petition. The respondents have filed the application just to
delay the proceedings.

3. That the contents of para No. 3 are incorrect and not admitted.

4. That the contents of para No. 4 are incorrect and not admitted.
MEPCO’s own standing committee comprising of (i) Regional
Manager, M&T Region, MEPCO, Multan (ii) S.E.
Bahawalpur Circle, Bahawalpur (iii) X.E.N. Bahawalpur
Division, MEPCO, Bahawalpur (iv) Circle Manager, M&T,
MEPCO, Bahawalpur have declared the meter defective on
11.4.2002. There is no justification of billing on the basis of
readings recorded by a defective meter after 11.4.2002, but the
respondents are adamant to recover their unreasonable and
 illegal bills for the months of April, May and June 2002. The
petitioner has already paid more than 50% of such disputed
bills under protest and an advance bill amounting to
Rs. 10,00,000/- has also been paid on .6.2002 on the personal
request of respondents No. 2 & 3, as a gesture of goodwill to
maintain good terms with respondents, inspite of above
referred wrong billing.

5. That the contents of para No. 5 are not correct. The claim of
respondents is not justified in the eyes of law. The petitioner
has already paid huge amount to the respondents as explained
in para No. 4 above.

6. That contents of para No. 6 are incorrect and not admitted.

7. That contents of para No. 7 are incorrect. It is a clear case of

malafide billing as the respondents have declared the meter
defective. The case will be decided by this Hon’ble Tribunal
on merit, INSHA ALLAH.

8. That the contents of para No. 8 are just repetition of the point
of jurisdiction. The petitioner has no objection to discuss the
point of jurisdiction first.

9. That in reply to para No. 9, it is submitted that the respondents

should come forward and argue the case instead of using
delaying tactics.

Under the above circumstances, it is respectfully

prayed that the application of respondents may kindly
be rejected with costs.
Any other remedy which this Hon’ble Tribunal
deems fit, may also be granted to the petitioner.
Petitioner,
Dated: ________

Through: -
M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
 Before the Advisory Board, Govt. of the Punjab, Lahore.

Appeal No.18-45/2002

MEPCO etc. Multan

VERSUS
M/s Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. Vehari.

Appeal against the decision dated 1.3.2002,

passed by the Electric Inspector, Multan Region, Multan.
Written statement/comments on behalf of respondent.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the contents of para No. 1 are correct.

2. That the contents of para 2 are incorrect. There existed no

residential colony as same was not constructed with the
construction of Mills.

3. That the contents of para No. 3 are incorrect based on a

concocted false story as this plea was not taken by appellants
before the learned Electric Inspector, Multan, during
proceedings in petition filed by respondent/petitioner. It is
well settled law that such plea cannot be taken in this appeal
at this stage. So far the criminal case is concerned, the false
F.I.R. No. 301/95 dated 15.12.95 was cancelled by the Special
Magistrate, WAPDA, Multan, (being the competent authority
under law) on the recommendation of police after thorough
investigation, after about 1½ year on 12.2.97, so this chapter
was finally closed. Details are already available on record
before this Hon’ble Tribunal. It is specifically pointed out that
an offender cannot repeat the same offence while the case is
 under investigation. So, it is crystal clear that neither the
electricity was being stolen nor used through industrial meter.
This is the exclusive proof that Housing Colony was not ready
for residential purpose till 1995-96. Moreover, the appellants
did enjoy a peaceful slumber for ten years. They did not
bother to get the investigation transferred or file appeal
against the cancellation orders of Special Magistrate,
WAPDA, Multan in a competent court. This chapter was
finally closed. This point cannot be re-opened now. (Reliance
is on cases PLD 1987 SC-145 and PLD-2002 Lahore-28).

4. That the contents of para No. 4 are correct to the extent that
the respondent applied for separate connection for proposed
residential colony and the appellants also issued demand
notice No. 423 dated 1.10.87, but later on the construction
plan/work of colony was postponed due to financial
circumstances and some cogent reasons. Compliance of
demand notice was not made, as the respondent did not need
electric connection. It is the policy of WAPDA or MEPCO as
the case may be, that the application of electric connection is
cancelled if the payment on demand notice is not made by the
prospective consumer and the appellants do not compel the
people for compliance of demand notice. So, the demand
notice under reference must had been cancelled at that time.

5. That contents of para No. 5 are incorrect. The demand of

Rs. 10,79,625/- was ab-initio wrong as there existed no
residential colony in 1987, so question of charging difference
of tariff does not arise. The respondent challenged this wrong,
illegal and unjustified bill before the learned Electric
Inspector, Multan.

6. That the contents of para No. 6 need no comments. The order

of learned Electric Inspector, Multan is self-explanatory.

7. That the order dated 1.3.2001 passed by the Electric Inspector

Multan, is legal, justified, within jurisdiction and with lawful
authority and liable to be upheld on the following:-
 GROUNDS

a) That in reply to sub para (a) it is stated that the

appellants have admitted that demand notice No. 423
dated 1.10.87 was issued but not paid. As already
explained in para No. 4 above, the respondent had
postponed the construction work of residential colony
so the electric connection was neither required nor
obtained at that time. Appellants claim was on a false
charge of theft of energy which could not be proved
before investigation agency. It will not be out of place
to mention here that the Mills premises were/are visited
every month by the X.E.N. (E) Vehari regularly. It is
unbelievable that an engineer with sound mind could
tolerate such so-called irregularity for 8-10 years and
could take no action. It is the conclusive proof that
electric energy was not utilized for other than industrial
purpose.

b) In reply to sub para (b), it has already been submitted in

foregoing para No. 3 that it is all false, concocted story
and cannot be accepted. The charge of installation of
two meters had already been proved false and F.I.R. No.
301/956 dated 15.12.95 was cancelled ab-initio by
competent authority. The issue was finally closed and
cannot be re-opened. (A cancellation report is Annex
“A”). Even otherwise, non-compliance of Demand
Notice cannot be charged with theft of energy. Delay of
about 10 years has not been justified also.

c) That the contents of sub para (c) are not admitted being
false. The respondent is at a loss to understand the logic
behind this so-called conclusive proof without any
footing to stand on. The false F.I.R. was cancelled ab-
initio. Allegations could not be proved. There was no
charge of theft of energy so no bill on a false charge can
be charged from innocent consumer.

d) That the detailed reply has already been given in

foregoing paras and in reply to sub para (d) it is
 sufficient to mention that all the allegations could not
be proved by the appellants being false as the
respondent was never involved in illegal use of
electricity.

e) That the contents of sub para (e) are not agreed to, as
the impugned bill was rightly set-aside under law by
learned Electric Inspector, Multan, as the appellants had
failed to produce any documentary evidence in their
favour.

d/2) That the contents of sub para (d/2) are not admitted.
The order dated 1.3.2002 is based on facts and reality
also valid in the eyes of law. The appellants have been
delaying the proceedings to create hindrance in the way
of justice. It is on the record that how frequent
adjournments on negative tactics were obtained by the
appellants during proceedings before the learned
Electric Inspector, Multan. The letter No. 12262 dated
7.11.2001 issued by learned Electric Inspector, Multan
is on record, which may kindly be perused. It is a
corroborative evidence to the contention of respondent.

e/2) That the contents of sub para (e/2) are incorrect. The
documents which have not been considered, have not
been mentioned.

f) That the contents of sub para (f) are incorrect and not
admitted. It is misconception of appellants that no
documentary evidence was produced by the respondent.
Such evidence is available on record. This Hon’ble
Tribunal is requested to consider the following few
aspects, so that the contention of respondent becomes
further clear: -
A)
i) F.I.R. No. 301/95 lodged on 15.12.95
(Allegation: theft of two meters of
electricity).
ii) Zimni No. 16 recorded on 26.11.96
(Meaning thereby that appellants had a
 considerable period of one year to prove
the allegations).
iii) Cancellation Report by S.H.O. dated
29.11.96.
iv) Recommendation by S.P. Vehari dated
12.2.97 No action by appellants.
v) Cancellation of F.I.R. by Special
Magistrate, WAPDA, Multan dated
12.2.97. No appeal against this order by
the appellants.

It is a worth-considering point that: -

Why two meters were installed if there

were any, when only one meter would suffice as
is in the case of regular connection. Now, only
one meter has been installed for recording the
consumption of colony.

B) Proceedings of S.O.P. to Housing Colony from

21.10.95 to 12.11.97.
Applied for connection: 21.10.95
Demand Notice issued: 27.07.96
Connection energized: 8/12.11.97

(after two years)

It may kindly be noticed that demand
notice was issued after 9 months and connection
was installed after 2 years. It is the conclusive
proof that colony was still under construction in
1995-96, otherwise, to regularise the misuse of
electricity, if there was any, the appellants could
adopt alternate measure such as: -

i) A sub meter could be installed through

Industrial meter and consumption adjusted
while billing accordingly.

ii) 11 K.V. Line already existed. A single-pole

sub-starting transformer could be installed
 and connection given within one week but
it took 2 years for this purpose.

C) Delay of 10 years.

Sleeping over 10 years by the appellants is

also a point to be considered when the reading of
B-3 connections are recorded by X.E.N.
concerned who is always accompanied by the
S.D.O. of the area. Nobody ever pointed out
unauthorized use of electricity whereas besides
monthly visit by above engineers, M&T &
Surveillance Teams of WAPDA/MEPCO also use
to come for periodical checking at site. In this
respect a case KLR-1989 Civil case LHR 556 is
referred, wherein it was held, “Delay of six years
in raising demand by the respondents was a
factor, which should have been considered with
care and caution and there is a delay of more than
10 years in raising demand, which is indicative of
malafide on the part of appellants.

Under the above

circumstances, it is most humbly prayed
that the order dated 1.3.2002 passed by the
learned Electric Inspector, Multan, may kindly be
upheld and the appeal of the appellants may be
dismissed with costs.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble

Tribunal deems fit, may also be granted.

Dated: _______
M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
 Before the Electric Inspector, Govt. of the Punjab,
Multan Region, Multan.

Gulistan Textile Mills Samma Satta Vs. MEPCO Ltd. etc.

Petition under section 38 of R.G.T.D. of

Electric Power Act, 1997 and section 24
& 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910.

Comments on written reply of respondents.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the respondents have repeatedly stated in their written
reply that they have not issued nay order against the
petitioner, sot the petition is premature and liable to be
dismissed. It is an admitted fact that MEPCO was
incorporated as a limited company under the Companies
Ordinance, 1984. It can pass order against its employees, but
not against the consumers. MEPCO is neither a court nor
tribunal, so its orders, if any, cannot possess the force and
status of orders issued by the courts. So, the self-supposed, so-
called imaginary order has no concern with the petition under
consideration. The respondents should have not ignored the
 contents of initial para of this Hon’ble Tribunal’s order No.
6772-6774 dated 12.7.2002.

2. That the parawise comments are given as under: -

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -

1. That the contents of para No. 1 are ambiguous rather based on

malafide as no details have been provided therein. It has not
been clarified whether the respondents have admitted the
claim of petitioner in full or not? This Hon’ble Tribunal has to
decide the case within 90 days as per notification of the Govt.
of Punjab dated 9.9.98. Inspite of repeated instructions of this
Hon’ble Tribunal, the respondents did not file written reply
within reasonable time. They have submitted written reply on
7.9.2002 after 107 days. The petitioner has been pointing out
the intentional inordinate delay in submission of written reply
by the respondents with special reference to Order 8, Rule 1 &
10 of C.P.C. 1908 (just for taking inference otherwise in
summary proceedings before tribunal like this Hon’ble
Forum, time limit of 90 days was to be observed as a must and
the respondents should not have taken more than 30 days for
submission of written statement, so that the issue could be
decided well in time. The respondents have not come with
clean hands as they have not justified the delay in submission
of written reply. As a matter of fact, the respondents were
required to provide the copy of recommendations with details
of calculations to this Hon’ble Tribunal as well as to petitioner
as the dispute is purely a techno-mathematical matter. It is
specifically pointed out that the petition was filed due to
perpetual wrong billing on the basis of readings recorded by a
defective T.O.D. meter and not against any self-supposed so-
called order. Request of respondents to dispose off the
petitioner sine-die is against the norms of justice rather
ridiculous as the respondents have charged considerable huge
amount in excess so far.
2. That contents of para No. 2 are not admitted being incorrect.
The contents of this para are based on respondents’ own
hypothesis, propositions and suppositions. As explained in
foregoing paras, the petition is against wrong billing and not
against any so-called order.

3. That contents of para No. 3 are incorrect. As explained in para

No. 4 of the original petition, wrong bills were being served
by the respondents and they did not stop inspite of repeated
requests of petitioner, so the petition was moved before this
Hon’ble Tribunal.

4. That the contents of para No. 4 are not admitted being

incorrect. As already pointed out, the petition is against the
wrong billing. The copies of wrong bills have already been
produced before this Hon’ble Tribunal. The so-called order is
just to create confusion and nothing else.

ON FACTS: -

1. That the reply to para No. 1 is not correct. It has already been
cleared in para No. 1 of the petition that Mr. Nasir Shehzad is
duly authorized to file petition, which is admissible under law.
A copy of the same is again annexed as “A” for ready
reference.

2. That contents of para No. 2 need no comments.

3. That contents of para No. 3 are not admitted being incorrect.

The wrong bills produced by the petitioner before this
Hon’ble Tribunal are exclusive proof of wrong and unjustified
billing.

4. That contents of para No. 4 are not admitted being incorrect.

As already mentioned in reply to preliminary objections, the
petition is against wrong billing. The petitioner has been kept
ignorant of any inter-office correspondence among the
respondents. If there is any positive move, the respondents
should intimate this Hon’ble Tribunal as well as petitioner
 with details so that it could be judged whether it meets the
legitimate demand of petitioner to meet the ends of justice. It
is purely a techno-mathematical issue and does not require a
prolonged period of time to finalize the dispute.

5. That the reply to para No. 4 is not admitted being incorrect.

The mere fact that the issue is pending before this Hon’ble
Tribunal for the last four months and the respondents could
not file written reply in time, is sufficient to prove that the
respondents are causing delay intentionally. However, it is a
basic constitutional right of every citizen of the country to
fight against the wrong and injustice and have the justice done
to get what he deserves.

6. That the reply to para No. 6 is not admitted being incorrect.

This Hon’ble Tribunal is an independent forum created and
authorized under the laws of Pakistan, to adjudicate such
matters. Respondents, being party to case, cannot dictate to
keep the matter pending till they decide to proceed further
according to their own sweet will. The contents of this para as
well as some other paras of the written reply reflect that the
respondents have confessed that the bills were actually being
issued on the basis of reading recorded by a defective T.O.D.
meter. Then, there should be no hesitation to overhaul and
adjust the accounts. They should cooperate with this Hon’ble
Tribunal to proceed further instead of creating hindrances and
let the matter decided on its merits.

7. That the contents of para No. 7 are not agreed to, being
incorrect. There is no dispute about any so-called order.
Wrong bills are to be withdrawn and accounts overhauled,
according to correct readings. The metering system installed
at Sama Satta Grid Station is functioning correctly and can be
helpful in determination of correct consumption of peak and
off-peak hours to arrive at a just and right decision.
 Note: - Copy of proforma for test check
dated 21.02.2000 issued vide No. 14878-82
dated 14.3.2000, copy of proforma for test
check dated 11.01.2002 issued vide no.
12449-54 dated 29.4.2002 by X.E.N.
MEPCO, Bahawalpur and comparative
data of consumption recorded by T.O.D.
meters of Mills premises and Gulistan Panel
are annexed as “P-1, P-2 & P-3”
respectively, speaking in favour of
petitioner, which will be further elaborated
in discussion on next date of hearing or as
directed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

It is, therefore, requested that the pray of

petitioner may kindly be accepted and consumption of
peak and off-peak hours may kindly be determined with
effect from 21.2.2000 (as the T.O.D. meter was
defective since the date of its installation), considering
the behaviour of correct T.O.D. meter installed at
Samma Satta Grid Station on Gulistan Mills Feeder
Panel by deducting the line losses as both the
conventional meters at Gulistan and Mills premises and
Grid Station are functioning within permissible limits
as per respondents’ own check reports (P.1 & P.2).

Any other remedy which this Hon’ble Tribunal

deems fit, may also be granted

Humble Petitioner,
Dated: _______

Through: -
M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
 BEFORE THE ADVISORY BOARD, GOVT. OF PUNJAB,
LAHORE.

Appeal No. ____________/02

Gulistan Textile Mills, Samma Satta District, Bahawalpur,

through Nasir Shehzad, Resident/Commercial Manager.
……APPELLANT

VERSUS

1. Multan Electric Supply Company Ltd. Khanewal Road, Multan,

through its Chief Executive at Multan.

2. Superintending Engineer, MEPCO Ltd., Bahawalpur Circle,

Bahawalpur.

5. Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd. Bahawalpur Division,

Bahawalpur.

6. Revenue Officer, MEPCO Ltd. Bahawalpur Division,

Bahawalpur.

……RESPONDENTS

Appeal against order dated 12.10.02,

passed by the Electric Inspector, Govt.
of Punjab, Multan Region, Multan, to
set aside the same and to declare the
charging of electricity bills in respect of
A/c No. 5413-1027300-2/B-3 on the basis
 of readings recorded by defective T.O.D.
meters as wrong, unjustified and illegal.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated

under the laws of Pakistan under the name and style of Gulistan
Textile Mills Ltd. Samma Satta District, Bahawalpur. The present
appeal is being filed by the company through Mr. Nasir Shehzad,
Commercial/Resident Manager, who is well conversant with the
facts of the case and duly authorised in this regard. (Copy of
Authority Letter is ANNEX “A”).

2. That the appellant company is a bonafide consumer of the

respondents under reference No. 27-5413-1027300-2/B-3, for
operating a textile mill unit at Samma Satta.

3. That since the very date of checking the metering equipment by

Standing Committee on 21.02.2000, the behaviour of T.O.D.
meter had been defective as inflated electricity bills were being
received from respondents. The matter was brought into notice of
respondents from time to time. Consequently, a committee
comprising of S.E. MEPCO Bahawalpur, Regional Manager,
M&T, Multan and Circle Manager, M&T, Bahawalpur & X.E.N.,
Operation Division, Bahawalpur, checked the meter on 11.4.02
and declared the T.O.D. meter as DEFECTIVE. Copy of
checking report dated 21.02.2000 and test check report dated
11.4.02 are ANNEX “B & C”.

4. That inspite of the fact that MEPCO’s own high level Technical
Committee had declared the meter’s behaviour as defective, the
respondents continued charging the bills on the basis of readings
recorded by defective T.O.D. meter inspite of protest by the
petitioner/appellant. Aggrieved from the wrong and illegal
charging of bills, the appellant filed a petition before the learned
Electric Inspector, Multan on 24.5.002. The respondents raised
objection of jurisdiction, which was contested and ultimately, the
 respondents were directed to submit written statement, matter
being within the jurisdiction of the learned Electric Inspector,
Multan, vide order dated 12.07.02. Copy of petition and order are
ANNEX “D & E”.

5. That the respondents after seeking so many adjournments,

submitted written statement on . The learned Electric
Inspector, Multan, has disposed off the petition vide his order
dated 12.10.02, directing the petitioner/appellant to approach the
respondents for correction of bills. Copy of order is ANNEX
“F”.

6. That the order dated 12.10.02 is liable to be set aside to resolve

the dispute, by the Hon’ble Advisory Board, among others on the
following: -

GROUNDS

i) That the impugned order dated 12.10.02 is against the

natural justice and equity.

ii) That the impugned order dated 12.10.02 is against the

facts and prevailing laws.

iii) That the learned Electric Inspector Multan has not

considered the checking report dated 21.02.2000 and
Test Check Report dated 11.04.02 while issuing the
impugned order dated 12.10.02.

iv) That the learned Electric Inspector, Multan has failed to

consider the record produced by the appellant/petitioner
in respect of readings recorded by correct metering
equipment installed at Grid Station Sama Satta (as per
log-sheets) alongwith comparative data of metering
equipment installed at the both ends of independent
Gulistan Mills’ Feeder. Copy of order is ANNEX “G”.

v) That the respondents have deliberately applied delaying

tactics and have not decided a clear case inspite of
 report of their own high level Technical Committee,
which proves malafide on the part of respondents. Also
they cannot become the judge of their own cause.

In view of above submissions, it is

earnestly prayed that the case may kindly be
considered by this Hon’ble Forum to determine
an appropriate formula keeping in view Peak and
Off-peak hours consumption recorded by the
correct T.O.D. meter installed at Samma Satta
Grid Station, to meet the ends of justice.

The bills charged on the basis of readings

recorded by defective T.O.D. meter may kindly
be declared as wrong, impugned, illegal and not
payable by the appellant and also liable to be
revised as per actual consumption during peak &
off peak hours.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum

deems fit and proper, may also be granted in the
interest of justice & equity.

Humble Appellant,
Dated: 10.01.2003

Through: -
M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.