Mepco

Before the Advisory Board, Irrigation & Power Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore.

MEPCO etc.

Vs.

1. 2.

Electric Inspector, Multan. Al-Noor Ice Factory, Chishtian.

Appeal against the order dated 3.10.2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Electric Inspector, Multan). Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 2

Respectfully Sheweth: Preliminary Objections: 1.

That the appeal is time-barred, hence liable to be dismissed.

2.

That the appellants have disregarded deliberately the orders of the learned Electric Inspector, Multan and inspite of the fact that Circle Manager, M & T Bahawalpur was present alongwith his staff at X.E.N.’s office, Chistian (Annex “A”), showed high-handedness and did not participate in checking of metering equipment. Not only this, they also discontinued the supply of Feeder, just to create hurdle so that the officer deputed by the learned Electric Inspector, Multan, may not check the metering equipment. Minimum expectation from public functionaries or from functionaries of a public statutory corporation is to adhere to law and orders passed by the Tribunals/Courts and it is their legal and statutory duty as well. In the given situation, not only the appeal is liable to be rejected but action on account of willful and intentional

disrespect of a competent forum created under law may also be initiated under the contempt of court ordinance, 1998. 3.

That the functionaries of a public statutory corporation are duty bound to abide by the directions passed by a forum of competent jurisdiction whereas the circumstances show clear deliberate violation on the part of appellants no. 2 & 4. The person who has violated law can not avail remedy under the same law. Hence, the appeal is liable to be rejected/dismissed.

ON FACTS: 1.

That the contents of para No. 1 of the appeal are not admitted. All the exercise of checking of meter by appellants was based on malafide as the appellants No. 2 & 4 had become inimical with the respondent No. 2 when he refused to join hands with them in their malpractices. The meter was functioning correctly on 19.6.2001 and it was not 32.45% slow, rather it seemed to be running fast. The detection bill issued by the appellants on account of so-called slowness was also wrong, illegal and without any lawful justification.

2.

That the contents of para No. 2 are not admitted. The wrong, illegal and unjustified bills were paid just to avoid disconnection of supply as the respondent No. 2 has no other alternate in the peak of season. What cannot be cured must be endured. The sword of disconnection in the hands of appellants has very drastic results. Machinery comes to a halt. The business is ruined and it becomes very difficult to recover, revive and survive. The payment was made in compelled circumstances.

3.

That the contents of para No. 3 are not correct. The respondent No. 2 never accepted the slowness of meter as it was actually not slow. The matter was brought before the learned Electric Inspector Multan being competent forum under the laws of Pakistan. The order date 3.10.2001 passed

by the learned Electric Inspector, Multan is absolutely within four-corners of law. 4.

That in reply to para No. 4, it is submitted that the order dated 3.10.2001 is in accordance with the facts of the case and covered under law.

5.

That the order dated 13.10.2001 is valid in the eyes of law according to the facts and circumstances of the case as per replies below to sub paras of the GROUNDS a)

That the respondent No. 1 served a notice to the parties to the case with directions for checking of meter in presence of both the parties on 25.9.2001. The Circle Manager M&T Bahawalpur along-with his staff was present on 25.9.2001 in the office of appellant No. 2 where appellant No. 4 was also present. Memo No. 2076-800/MT-2/CTN

dated

28.9.2001

of

Circle

Manager, M&T, Bahawalpur is annexed as “A” to prove the presence of concerned officers of MEPCO at Chishtian on 25.9.2001. The A.E.I. (the officer deputed by the learned Electric Inspector, Multan) reached in the office of appellant No. 2 and asked to accompany him for checking of metering equipment, but the MEPCO functionaries resisted and did not co-operate with him. As explained in para No. 2 of preliminary objections, the action of appellants was deliberate and requires to be dealt with under the contempt of court ordinance, 1998. So far as the action of officer of the Hon’ble Forum is concerned, it was quite in line with the provisions of law. The authorised officer had no alternate but to check the meter in presence of consumer/respondent No. 2 and two respectables of the area. The meter was running fast @ 55.83% which was proved to be correct by the appellants own checking

result on 29.9.2001 but they removed the check meter just after 1-1/2 hour saying that check meter has become defective, whereas it was working correctly and indicated that the factory’s billing meter was running fast. b)

That it was totally unjustified to ask the consumer to deposit 50% of the excessive detection bill prepared under malafide intention, specially, when the meter was not functioning slow. Moreover, according to the provisions of law, the 50% amounts of disputed bill is to be deposited with the Electric Inspector and not with the appellants.

c)

That the appellants No. 2 & 4 have not behaved like law abiding persons. They discontinued the supply of feeder on 25.9.2001 till late hours in the evening, so the meter cold not be checked on that day. Consequently, the Assistant Electric Inspector checked the metering equipment

on

26.9.2001.

MEPCO

functionaries

(appellants No. 2 &4) are not above law. The representative of a competent forum cannot bear the high-handedness of the appellants No. 2 & 4. He has to perform his duty, which he did under the law. d)

That as already explained in foregoing para No. 1, the meter was not running slow. The season for less consumption in the running season than last season is not slowness of meter. Actually, the appellants No. 2 & 4 (being inimical towards the respondent No. 2) shifted the D-phases/cut-links, to 3 poles before the factory whereas the same were installed at 4th or 5th pole after the factory. By this act of malice and malafide, the appellants used to disconnect the supply from the said D-phases/cut-links. Consequently, the consumption in the current season had decreased beside causing considerable financial loss to the respondent No. 2.

However it may be noticed that it was not far less but just in proportionate to the period of intentional disconnection of the supply by appellants No. 2 & 4. e)

That the report of respondent No. 1 based on the factual and actual functioning of meter on 26.9.2001. The reason for less computation in the current season has been given in sub-para (d) above. Moreover, the fastness of meter has also been confirmed by the appellants own M&T formation as the meter has been declared more fast than 55.83% (as per Annex “F” of appeal, it was 135.7% fast).

f)

That this sub-para relates to the respondent No. 1 as some technical aspects have been discussed in it. Howver, one thing is specially pointed out that behaviour of KVARH meter cannot be relied upon and made the base for charging detection bill because in MEPCO’s own report dated 19.6.201, the KVARH meter was found dead stop (Annex “A” of appeal) and in their report dated 17.10.2001 (Annex “F” of appeal) the same KVARH meter has advanced from 207707 reading to 280838 reading upto 16.10.2001. So, the behaviour of existing KVARH meter cannot be made the basis of charging any detection bill. The appellants always charge slowness from previous months from consumers but they do not dare to allow refund to the consumer from previous months.

g)

That the options offered by appellants mean like or lump. These are not binding upon the respondent No. 2. The meter is running fast, which is secured in A.T.B., duly welded and sealed. Security slips provided on A.T.B., were also intact. The respondent No. 2 challenged the appellants No. 2 & 4 to make the meter fast or slow by whatever technical means if they can, but without disturbing the status of A.T.B./meter. If

they, being technical experts, cannot do so then how a non-technical consumer can disturb the functioning of meter well secured in A.T.B.? 7. That the report of respondent No. 1 is not arbitrary. Even if a party does not participate in the checking exercise, the competent forum can proceed under law and declare its findings. Needless to say that the findings of the Hon’ble Forum of Electric Inspector, Multan, has been corroborated by the report of MEPCO’s Circle Manager, Bahawalpur. It is well established that slow meter may become more slow gradually but it does not become fast latter on automatically. Similarly, a fast running meter may function constantly at the same speed or it may become more fast in future months. In the instant case, either the meter was running fast ( at whatever rate or speed) since the date of its installation or it developed fault when digital display was washed out and it started running fast. PRAY: In view of the above humble submissions, it is requested that: i) The decision of the learned Electric Inspector, Multan dated 3.10.2001 may kindly be upheld. ii) The KWH M.D.I. meter may kindly be declared to be fast @ 55.83% since the date of its installation or the date of washing out digital display as deemed fit in the interest of justice and accounts overhauled accordingly. iii) Special attention of this Hon’ble Board is also invited towards the deliberate disregard of the directions of a competent forum and frustrated the proceedings on 25.9.2001. The matter may kindly be referred to solicitor or proceedings against the appellants No. 2 & 4 may kindly be initiated under the Contempt of Court Amendment Act. Humble Respondent No. 2, Dated: _______ Through: M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri, Advocate High Court, 28-Distric Courts, Multan.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF CONSUMPTION OF CORRESPONDING MONTHS OF YEAR 1998-99-2000, IN RESPECT OF NISAR ICE FACTORY, MULTAN.

Month Oct/98 Nov/98 Dec/98 1/99 2/99 3/99 4/99 5/99 Total 6/99 Grand total

KWH units charged. 8788 24 62 92 0 0 97 21298 30361 35889 66250

M.D.I. charged. 50 0 0 42 1 1 1 6

Months Oct/99 Nov/99 Dec/99 Jan/2000 Feb/2000 Mar/2000 Apr/2000 May/2000

0

June/2000

KWH units charged 10094 13881 0 0 193 0 0 7521 31689 38428 70117

M.D.I. charged 40 40 0 0 2 38 0 42 59 (with slowness charges).