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 non-
payment 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 non-
flat 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. 1—7
4 Affidavit 9
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 Copy of inter-office note (X.E.N. Lodhran D 31—33
to S.E. Vehari).
9 Dispensation Application. 35
10 Affidavit. 37
11 Application for interim relief. 39
12 Affidavit. 41
13 Power of Attorney. 43

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.