ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

C. P. No. D – 1073 of 2018

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

 

1.    For hearing of CMA No.5716/2018 (S/A)

2.    For hearing of main case

(Notice issued to Law Officer SEPCO and Advocate)

 

15.08.2018

 

Ms. Shanila Erum, Associate of Mr. Qurban Ali Malano,

Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. T. David Lawrence, Advocate for respondents / SEPCO.

Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, Deputy Attorney General.

 

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

            The substantial question in this petition is issuance of detection bill. It has been pointed out by the counsel appearing for the respondents / SEPCO that necessary and appropriate party “SEPCO” has not been arrayed. He further pointed out that the petitioner had already approached the Electric Inspector for redressal of his grievance as the application in terms of para 7 and 8 is pending before him.

            We have heard the learned counsel and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Electric Inspector to adjudicate the questions in the grievance application pending before him preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks. Insofar as the detection bill is concerned, although authority of SEPCO for issuing detection bill on its own is questionable however in case the petitioner apprehends disconnection, he may deposit 50% of the disputed amount with the Electric Inspector; whereafter, the Electric Inspector may pass appropriate orders to restrain SEPCO authorities from disconnecting the electricity connection as the application of petitioner is already pending.

            We have been observing that in a number of cases that the dispute concerning metering equipment are being dealt with by licensee / electric supply companies, and the companies are becoming judge of their own cause and are issuing detection bills. In terms of Section 26 Sub-Section 6 of the Electricity Act, 1910, it is only the prerogative of the Electric Inspector to look into such issues that relates to electric equipments and its faultiness; and, the power generating or supplying companies cannot issue a detection or supplementary bill as it encroaches upon the Electric Inspector’s jurisdiction under Section 26 Sub-Section 6 of the Electricity Act, 1910. Insofar as illegal abstraction of electricity is concerned, that is where no faultiness of the electrical equipment is pointed out, no doubt the companies are at liberty to act in accordance with law, they may also lodge an FIR, but the consumption is to be assessed as to how much electricity was consumed illegally and unlawfully which is based on the maximum energy consumed through maximum demand indicator, in a given period of time by the consumer and based on that average bills in terms of the contracted and connected load amount could be assessed and recovered. Even this connected load is to be adjudged by Electric Inspector. None of these exercises are being was carried out, hence, we expect that the companies shall act keeping in mind their powers and authority under the Electricity Act insofar as their future course is concerned.

            The petition and listed application stand disposed of in the above terms.

 

 

 

J U D G E

 

J U D G E

Abdul Basit