Appeal A

Before the Advisory Board, Govt. of the Punjab, Lahore.

Appeal No. ____________/2002 Anwar Mahmood S/o Muhammad Aslam, caste Qureshi, R/o Mayo Colony, Masoom Shah Road, proprietor, Shama Plastic Factory, Multan. ……APPELLANT 1.

VERSUS Multan Electric Power Company Ltd. Khanewal Road, Multan, through its Chief Executive.

2.

Superintending Engineer, MEPCO, Multan Circle, Multan.

3.

Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd., Cantt. Division, Multan.

4.

Revenue Officer, MEPCO Ltd., Cantt. Division, Multan.

5.

S.D.O. MEPCO Ltd., Hassan Abad Sub-Division, Multan. ……RESPONDENTS

Appeal against the decision dated 6.7.2002 passed by the Electric Inspector, Multan Region, Multan.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the appellant is a consumer of the respondents under tariff B-2 with sanctioned load of 22 K.W., for running a plastic factory.

2.

That the meter of factory was checked on 8.8.2001 by the respondents unilaterally without serving prior notice to the appellant. As appeared from the contents of the F.I.R. No. 408/2001 dated 9.8.2001, the S.D.O. (respondent No. 5) opened the A.T.B. on 8.8.2001 in the absence of appellant, removed the meter from the site and then lodged the F.I.R. against the appellant on 9.8.2001.

3.

That the respondents, besides registration of case in P.S. New Multan, rendered a detection bill of Rs. 124,000/-, which was wrong, illegal and unjustified. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Bench at Multan; and then preferred an application to the learned Electric Inspector, Multan Region, Multan on the direction of Hon’ble High Court.

4.

That the learned Electric Inspector, Multan has reduced the detection unites to be charged as 16145 instead of 21298 units vide his order dated 6.7.2002 (Annex “A”).

5.

That the order dated 6.7.2002 of the learned Electric Inspector, Multan is against the law and facts, hence, to be amended and to set aside the whole detection bill of Rs. 124,000/- on the following: GROUNDS i)

That the learned Electric Inspector, Multan, has failed to consider that respondents did not to serve a notice before checking of meter/opening of A.T.B.

ii)

That the learned Electric Inspector, Multan has failed to consider that the respondents removed the meter from site on 8.8.2001 and kept in their custody for one day and then handed over to police on 9.8.2001. In this way, the respondents succeeded to tamper the meter and make hole in it.

iii)

That the learned Electric Inspector has failed to consider that the respondents were not clear themselves about the allegations against the appellant. The allegations levied in F.I.R., in notice issued to appellant and in Surveillance Team of MEPCO differ with each other. Similarly, the S.D.O. MEPCO Hassan Abad SubDivision and X.E.N. MEPCO Cantt. Division, Multna recommended to charge detection bill considering the period from 5/2001 to 7/2001, but the Surveillance Team has suggested to charge from 4/2001 to 8/2001. It

may kindly be noticed that the meter was removed from the site on 8.8.2001 and supply was disconnected on the same day. iv)

That, as a matter of act, the factory was given on lease with effect from 3/2001. The new occupant always requires some time to settle. So, the consumption of factory is always liable to rise and fall according to production, which is absolutely proportional to demand for which the new occupant has to find customers in the beginning.

v)

That in view of ground realities and facts as stated above, it is not a case of comparison of consumption with previous months as the factory was operated by two different managements, according to their demand and sale of products.

vi)

That the contention of appellant has not been taken into consideration while deciding the dispute that the respondent No. 5 had proceeded ex-parte and arbitrarily at the instance of rival business parties, who are indulged in malpractices by joining hands with him (respondent No. 5) and causing heavy loss to MEPCO. The S.D.O. tried to trap the appellant in the same business, but when refused, developed grudge and became inimical with appellant.

vii)

That further arguments will be advanced on the date of hearing fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be accepted to amend the order dated 6.7.2002, passed by the learned Electric Inspector, Multan and set aside the whole impugned detection bill of Rs. 124,000/-. Any other remedy which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit, may also be granted. Humble Appellant,

Dated: ________