Jang Sher
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Jang Sher as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,132
- Pages: 5
Before the Electric Inspector, Govt. of the Punjab, Multan Region, Multan.
Jang Sher S/o Khurshid Khan R/o Basti Nathay Wala, Mauza Dukhan Gharo, P.O. Karor Pakka, Tehsil & District Lodhran. ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Multan Electric Supply Company Ltd. Khanewal Road, Multan, through its Chief Executive at Multan. 2. Superintending Engineer, MEPCO Ltd., Vehari Circle, Vehari. 3. Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd. Lodhran Division, Lodhran. 4. S.D.O. MEPCO Ltd. Karoror Pakka Sub-Division, Karor Pakka. 5. Revenue Officer, MEPCO Ltd, Lodhran Division, Lodhran. ……RESPONDENTS
Petition under section 38 of the R.G.T.D. of Electric Power Act, 1997 and section 24 the Electricity Act, 1910, against wrong, unjustified, illegal and unlawful bill of Rs. 1,71,888/- based on audit note No. 272 dated 3.7.99 in respect of Tubewell connection A/c No. 11622002/D in the name of Khurshid Khan (deceased).
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the petitioner is consumer of MEPCO under domestic connection
A/c
No.
117820005-R/A-1
and
Tub-well
connection A/c No. 11622002/D within the meaning of
occupant/owner of the said two premises since the death of his father named Khurshid Khan. 2.
That the petitioner used to make the payment of electricity bills of both the connections regularly and never defaulted any amount. In 10/96, bore the tube-well damaged and its electric connection was got disconnected. Since then, electricity was not at all used for running tube-well and consumption remained Nil even uptill now. Once, in the month of 01/98, the MEPCO officials charged on account of wrong or bogus reading, but on the application of petitioner, the wrong bill was withdrawn. Copies of application with report, Kalamzoo Card, consumption data showing readings for 10/96 and onward and letter No. 693 dated 17.4.98 are Annexes “A, B, C & D”.
3.
That the petitioner paid the amount of Rs. 10,074/- on 11.8.99 to settle/clear all dues claimed by MEPCO in respect of tubewell’s connection as trial bill (copy of S.D.O. Karor Pakka letter No. 3413 dated 13.12.99 is Annex “E”.
4.
That the respondent No. 5 issued a notice No. 2094 dated 9.8.99 (copy attached as Annex “H”). Audit party No. M-21 has debited Rs. 1,71,888/- (copy of notice is Annex “F”) vide Audit Note No. 272 dated 3.7.99 on account of charging of wrong tariff for 7/96 to 12/98. The petitioner appeared before R.O. MEPCO Lodhran (respondent No. 5) and explained the facts, but he did not listen to the petitioner’s contentions. The petitioner followed up the matter with respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 and consequently letter attached as Annex “G” was issued by the X.E.N., MEPCO, Lodhran (respondent No. 3) to Superintending Engineer, Vehari Circle, Vehari explaining details with the request to approach to the Deputy Chief Auditor, WAPDA, Multan for withdrawal of audit note on 20.10.99. After due verification that the connection of tubewell was disconnected by MEPCO in 10/96 when intimation about damage of bore was given by the consumer and
thereafter not a single unit of electricity was used. So, the charging consumer whether on flat rate or non-flat rate was not justified. It was also told that the said so-called sanction could not be reported to WAPDA computer cell, so the same and had now been charged from 8/96 to 12/98. (Copy of inter office note of S.D.O.’s office is annexed as Annex “F”). The issue of disputed wrong audit note is between the MEPCO and Audit, which could not be settled by the respondents. 5.
That the payment of electricity bill for the month of 6/2002 in respect of domestic connection was made in time (Copy is Annex “H”) but eh respondent No. 4 disconnected the supply on 4.7.2002 without serving any prior notice. When asked, he demanded the payment of Rs. 2,12,572/- raised against tubewell connection on the basis of Audit note referred in foregoing paras.
6.
That the petitioner filed writ petition No. 8258 in the Hon’ble High Court, Lahore, Multan Bench, Multan against the unjustified, illegal and unlawful disconnection of domestic electric supply on illegal and unlawful demand against tubewell connection of the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court had very kindly directed for immediate restoration of supply after clearance of dues against domestic connection (under protest) and also directed the petitioner to approach the competent forum for other grievances i.e. illegal claim against the tubewell connection.
7.
That the petitioner seeks lawful remedy against the illegal and unlawful demand of respondents against the tube-well connection on the basis of audit note, amongst others, on the following: GROUNDS a)
That the demand of respondents is absolutely wrong, unjustified and illegal without any lawful authority as the connection was disconnected in 10/96 and thereafter
not a single unit of electricity was used as is apparent from the respondents’ own record. b)
That audit affair is a matter between MEPCO and its Audit Department. Audit report could not make a consumer liable for any amount and could not bring about any agreement between MEPCO and consumer making latter liable to pay amount enhanced on basis thereof.
c)
That the demanded amount was neither due nor outstanding against the petitioner when he paid the final bill and cleared all dues against tube-well connection.
d)
That connection was disconnected in 10/96. If the socalled sanction of charge of tariff from non-flat rate to flat rate had reached in MEPCO’s sub-ordinate offices in 10/96, even then it had no force or effect because: i)
It was not intimated/conveyed to petitioner.
ii)
It was not fed to computer for effecting the change in tariff.
iii)
The connection was duly disconnected in 10/96 when the bore was damaged. There was no use of electricity.
The
MEPCO
officials/officers
specially Field Officer (respondent No. 4) was aware of the facts. So, they might have not considered it necessary to effect such change of tariff as the consumer was not to be charged a single rupee in view of disconnection of supply. iv)
As a matter of principle, when supply was disconnected, the question of charging on flat rate or non-flat rate does not arise.
v)
Respondents No. 2 & 3 have admittedly agreed for withdrawal of audit note in 1999. To claim an
illegal bill at this belated stage without any justification is absolutely against the law and all norms of justice, which is crystal clear from respondents’ own word and conduct. PRAY: In light of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be accepted declaring the bill of Rs. 171,888/- along-with discount, if any, charged and claimed on the basis of audit note as wrong, unjustified, illegal, without any lawful authority and not payable by the petitioner. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit, may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: _________ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
Jang Sher S/o Khurshid Khan R/o Basti Nathay Wala, Mauza Dukhan Gharo, P.O. Karor Pakka, Tehsil & District Lodhran. ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Multan Electric Supply Company Ltd. Khanewal Road, Multan, through its Chief Executive at Multan. 2. Superintending Engineer, MEPCO Ltd., Vehari Circle, Vehari. 3. Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd. Lodhran Division, Lodhran. 4. S.D.O. MEPCO Ltd. Karoror Pakka Sub-Division, Karor Pakka. 5. Revenue Officer, MEPCO Ltd, Lodhran Division, Lodhran. ……RESPONDENTS
Petition under section 38 of the R.G.T.D. of Electric Power Act, 1997 and section 24 the Electricity Act, 1910, against wrong, unjustified, illegal and unlawful bill of Rs. 1,71,888/- based on audit note No. 272 dated 3.7.99 in respect of Tubewell connection A/c No. 11622002/D in the name of Khurshid Khan (deceased).
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the petitioner is consumer of MEPCO under domestic connection
A/c
No.
117820005-R/A-1
and
Tub-well
connection A/c No. 11622002/D within the meaning of
occupant/owner of the said two premises since the death of his father named Khurshid Khan. 2.
That the petitioner used to make the payment of electricity bills of both the connections regularly and never defaulted any amount. In 10/96, bore the tube-well damaged and its electric connection was got disconnected. Since then, electricity was not at all used for running tube-well and consumption remained Nil even uptill now. Once, in the month of 01/98, the MEPCO officials charged on account of wrong or bogus reading, but on the application of petitioner, the wrong bill was withdrawn. Copies of application with report, Kalamzoo Card, consumption data showing readings for 10/96 and onward and letter No. 693 dated 17.4.98 are Annexes “A, B, C & D”.
3.
That the petitioner paid the amount of Rs. 10,074/- on 11.8.99 to settle/clear all dues claimed by MEPCO in respect of tubewell’s connection as trial bill (copy of S.D.O. Karor Pakka letter No. 3413 dated 13.12.99 is Annex “E”.
4.
That the respondent No. 5 issued a notice No. 2094 dated 9.8.99 (copy attached as Annex “H”). Audit party No. M-21 has debited Rs. 1,71,888/- (copy of notice is Annex “F”) vide Audit Note No. 272 dated 3.7.99 on account of charging of wrong tariff for 7/96 to 12/98. The petitioner appeared before R.O. MEPCO Lodhran (respondent No. 5) and explained the facts, but he did not listen to the petitioner’s contentions. The petitioner followed up the matter with respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 and consequently letter attached as Annex “G” was issued by the X.E.N., MEPCO, Lodhran (respondent No. 3) to Superintending Engineer, Vehari Circle, Vehari explaining details with the request to approach to the Deputy Chief Auditor, WAPDA, Multan for withdrawal of audit note on 20.10.99. After due verification that the connection of tubewell was disconnected by MEPCO in 10/96 when intimation about damage of bore was given by the consumer and
thereafter not a single unit of electricity was used. So, the charging consumer whether on flat rate or non-flat rate was not justified. It was also told that the said so-called sanction could not be reported to WAPDA computer cell, so the same and had now been charged from 8/96 to 12/98. (Copy of inter office note of S.D.O.’s office is annexed as Annex “F”). The issue of disputed wrong audit note is between the MEPCO and Audit, which could not be settled by the respondents. 5.
That the payment of electricity bill for the month of 6/2002 in respect of domestic connection was made in time (Copy is Annex “H”) but eh respondent No. 4 disconnected the supply on 4.7.2002 without serving any prior notice. When asked, he demanded the payment of Rs. 2,12,572/- raised against tubewell connection on the basis of Audit note referred in foregoing paras.
6.
That the petitioner filed writ petition No. 8258 in the Hon’ble High Court, Lahore, Multan Bench, Multan against the unjustified, illegal and unlawful disconnection of domestic electric supply on illegal and unlawful demand against tubewell connection of the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court had very kindly directed for immediate restoration of supply after clearance of dues against domestic connection (under protest) and also directed the petitioner to approach the competent forum for other grievances i.e. illegal claim against the tubewell connection.
7.
That the petitioner seeks lawful remedy against the illegal and unlawful demand of respondents against the tube-well connection on the basis of audit note, amongst others, on the following: GROUNDS a)
That the demand of respondents is absolutely wrong, unjustified and illegal without any lawful authority as the connection was disconnected in 10/96 and thereafter
not a single unit of electricity was used as is apparent from the respondents’ own record. b)
That audit affair is a matter between MEPCO and its Audit Department. Audit report could not make a consumer liable for any amount and could not bring about any agreement between MEPCO and consumer making latter liable to pay amount enhanced on basis thereof.
c)
That the demanded amount was neither due nor outstanding against the petitioner when he paid the final bill and cleared all dues against tube-well connection.
d)
That connection was disconnected in 10/96. If the socalled sanction of charge of tariff from non-flat rate to flat rate had reached in MEPCO’s sub-ordinate offices in 10/96, even then it had no force or effect because: i)
It was not intimated/conveyed to petitioner.
ii)
It was not fed to computer for effecting the change in tariff.
iii)
The connection was duly disconnected in 10/96 when the bore was damaged. There was no use of electricity.
The
MEPCO
officials/officers
specially Field Officer (respondent No. 4) was aware of the facts. So, they might have not considered it necessary to effect such change of tariff as the consumer was not to be charged a single rupee in view of disconnection of supply. iv)
As a matter of principle, when supply was disconnected, the question of charging on flat rate or non-flat rate does not arise.
v)
Respondents No. 2 & 3 have admittedly agreed for withdrawal of audit note in 1999. To claim an
illegal bill at this belated stage without any justification is absolutely against the law and all norms of justice, which is crystal clear from respondents’ own word and conduct. PRAY: In light of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be accepted declaring the bill of Rs. 171,888/- along-with discount, if any, charged and claimed on the basis of audit note as wrong, unjustified, illegal, without any lawful authority and not payable by the petitioner. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit, may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: _________ Through: Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.
