Writ Against Mepco

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2002

Jang Sher S/o Khurshid Khan, R/o Basti Nathay Wala, Mauza Dukhna Gharo, P.O. Karor Pakka, Tehsil & District Lohdran. ……PETITIONER

VERSUS 1. Multan Electric Supply Company Ltd. Khanewal Road, Multan, through its Chief Executive at Multan. 2. Superintending Engineer, MEPCO, Vehari Circle, Vehari. 3. Executive Engineer, MEPCO Ltd. Lodhran Division Lodhran. 4. S.D.O. MEPCO, Karor Pakka Sub-Division, Karor Pakka. 5. Revenue Officer, MEPCO, Lodhran Division, Lodhran. ……RESPONDENTS

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2. That the petitioner is consumer of MPECO under electric meter A/c No. 11782005/R/A-1, (domestic connection) within the meanings of occupier/owner of the premises after the death of his father named Khurshid Khan. 3. That the petitioner used to make payment of electricity bills regularly and nothing was outstanding against him uptill June 2002 (copy of last paid bill is Annex “A”). Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 disconnected the electric supply on 4.7.2002 without any prior notice and assigning any reason. When asked, the workers/line-men, who came to remove the meter, told that the supply has been disconnected on account of non-payment of electricity bill. As there was no default on the part of the petitioner, he rushed to the office of respondent No. 4, who disclosed that domestic supply has been disconnected due to nonpayment of Rs. 212,572/- raised by MEPCO Audit Party No. 21, vide audit note No. 272 dated 3.7.99 against tube-well connection A/c No. 11622002/R in the name of Khurshid Khan as an application filed by the petitioner for charging of flat rate was sanctioned by Director Commercial, MEPCO, Multan on 26.9.1996, but could not be intimated to Computer Cell for implementation at that time, so the difference of tariff from nonflat rate to flat rate has been charged now from 7/96 to 12/98. 4. That the petitioner told the respondent No. 4 that the bore of tube-well was damaged in 10/96 and the supply was duly got disconnected which is apparent from the record of respondents (Annex “B” for ready reference). The supply was never used after 10/96. Mere application by consumer without actual physical and utilization of energy would not make the consumer/petitioner liable to pay flat rate charges as neither the petitioner/consumer was informed about such sanction nor the concerned functionaries of MEPCO ever implemented such order

and fed the computer any such information. Even if it was done so, there seems to be no justification of charging on flat rate or non-flat rate as the supply of tube well was physically disconnected by MEPCO and was not used at all due to damage of bore, which is also proved by the record of respondents (Annex “C/1 to C/

”). On above explanation, the respondent

No. 4 directed the petitioner to meet respondent No. 3 who advised to see respondent No. 2, but inspite of rolling like a stone in the above triangle of offices, the petitioner could not get the supply restored till todate. 5. That the respondents’ demand is based on an audit note, whereas, in case of petitioner, the respondent No. 4 himself has confessed that respondent No. 5 accepted the audit note without consulting his office (Annex “D”). So, the illegality of demand of such charges is crystal clear by the respondents own word and conduct. Actually, respondent No. 4 (S.D.O. Karor Pakka) is the Field Officer who knows the factual position that the supply was disconnected since 10/96. So, the audit note is ab-initio wrong and based on malafide. 6. That in the petitioner’s case, the respondents have violated the express provisions of law. A bare reading of Sec-24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 makes it abundantly clear that: i)

Licensee cannot cut off supply without giving not less than seven clear days notice to the consumer; and

ii)

cannot cut off supply of domestic premises of a consumer running distinctly in his name whether he neglects to pay energy charges or any other sum etc. of industrial/tube-well or commercial connection running in his name. Procedure for such recoveries is also laid down in Sec-24 of the Electricity Act, 1910.

7. That there is no other alternate, efficacious and speedy remedy available to the petitioner except to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Prayer: Under these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this writ petition may graciously be accepted with costs declaring the disconnection of supply of domestic premises as illegal, wrong and against justice. The respondents may kindly be directed to restore the supply of domestic connection of petitioner immediately. Any other relief which this Hon’ble deems fit may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. HUMBLE PETITIONER, Dated:

.10.2002

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

CERTIFICATE: It is certified that as per instructions of the client no such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate BOOKS: 1.

The Electricity Act, 1910.

2.

The R.G.T.D. of the Electric Power Act, 1997.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No. ______________/2002 Jang Sher

Vs.

MEPCO etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Jang Sher S/o Khurshid Khan, R/o Basti Nathay Wala, Mauza Dukhna Gharo, P.O. Karor Pakka, Tehsil & District Lohdran, through Muhammad Sadiq (real son).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of October 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. ____________/2002 In W.P. No.____________/2002 Jang Sher

Vs.

MEPCO etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copies of Annexes “A to D” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT Dated: __________ Through: M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2002 In W.P. No.____________/2002 Jang Sher

Vs.

MEPCO etc.

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF. AFFIDAVIT of: Jang Sher S/o Khurshid Khan, R/o Basti Nathay Wala, Mauza Dukhna Gharo, P.O. Karor Pakka, Tehsil & District Lohdran, through Muhammad Sadiq (real son).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of November 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________/2002 Jang Sher

Vs.

MEPCO etc.

INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1

Urgent Form

__

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

__

3

Writ Petition.

4

Affidavit

5

Copy of bill of 6/2002.

A

11

6

Copy of letter dated 17.4.98.

B

13—15

7

Copies of inter-officer correspondence. C/1 to C/6

17—29

8

31—33

9

Copy of inter-office note (X.E.N. Lodhran to S.E. Vehari). Dispensation Application.

10

Affidavit.

37

11

Application for interim relief.

39

12

Affidavit.

41

13

Power of Attorney.

43

1—7 9

D

35

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2002 In W.P. No.____________/2002 Jang Sher

Vs.

MEPCO etc.

Application U/s 151 C.P.C. for interim relief/ restoration of domestic electric supply.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the above-captioned writ petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court against wrong, illegal and unlawful disconnection of supply of electric connection.

2.

That the contents of the main writ petition may be considered as integral part of this application.

3.

That this Hon’ble Court has very kindly called for reports by respondents No. 3 & 4 within ten days vide order dated 14.10.2002.

4.

That the requisite reports have not been submitted by respondents No. 3 & 4 so far which is gross negligence and is tantamount to contempt of court.

5.

That domestic supply of the applicant has been disconnected by respondents since 4.7.2002, without serving any notice in violation of law.

6.

That the applicant has been deprived of his right of life guaranteed by law.

7.

That applicant’s children are suffering irreparable loss of their education due to disconnection of supply.

8.

That the matter is of very much sensitive nature as disconnection of supply is causing great inconvenience and disturbance in routine life of applicant as well as his dependants specially suffering from great inconvenience in offering prayers and performance of worships in this holy month of Ramazan.

9.

That the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant.

10.

That prima facie it is an arguable case. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that interim relief may graciously be granted by way of direction to respondents for restoration of supply to domestic premises immediately. HUMBLE APPLICANT,

Dated: _________

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