Whatsapp

" CLOG ON DISCRETION CLOG ON DISCRETION   By   M. Qasim Khan Khattak, Advocate, Karak, (N.‑W.F.P.)   Discretion' makes its own place not necessarily in a given situation, is always obedient to a special statute or in other words a special statutory law can bar or act as clog on the judicial exercise of discretion is to be based on equity good conscience and are inherent to a common man of the society demands as well on the same path. The same is the case with general law but subject to exceptions.   Taking example of section 54‑C of Electricity Act, 1910, an Act got much familiarity in the present reign, is in discriminate application. The consumers have been put by it to the wholesale and blind exercise of discretion of sending huge amount, of bills assessed by the concerned WAPDA Authorities on their sweet‑will not in consonance of the Act or Rules framed thereunder. Lawyers and Advocates know cases of double jeopardy or in contravention of section 24 of the Act and it is the point in question between these two instances will be consequently elucidated with the help of another example. Once a consumer is charged for electricity theft or use of method prohibited by the law is debited with assessment units or charges for a particular period, normally six months and called stealing charges. The mode of which assessment has been prescribed in section 26‑A of the Act does not allow to charge the same consumer again within the said period already charged for, otherwise the case becomes of double jeopardy. If such a case comes before our Courts from top to bottom denies the interim relief unless the condition of deposit on protest has been made by the plaintiff in accordance with the order of the Courts have so far showed…