| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 967 2017 SLD 967 2017 PLJ 299 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 22166 of 2011, heard on 13.10.2016. Date of hearing: 13.10.2016.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Mian Muhammad Javed, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Hussain Ahmed Madni, Advocate for
Respondents No. 4 to 9.
W.P. No. 22166 of 2011, heard on 13.10.2016. Date of hearing: 13.10.2016.
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE
Mian Muhammad Javed, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Hussain Ahmed Madni, Advocate for
Respondents No. 4 to 9.
FESCO THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ETC. ERS
VS
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ETC. --RespondentS
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115--Constitutional jurisdiction--Remedy--Consumer of electricity connection--Disconnected--Detection bill--Either any show-cause notice was issued--Period of 90 days having been already expired--Validity--It is settled principle that in presence/availability of alternate appropriate remedy, constitutional jurisdiction of High Court cannot be invoked-Writ petition can also be converted into revision petition, but that would be hit by limitation, which cannot be condoned automatically unless delay of each and every day is specifically explained by moving an application in that behalf and same was lacking in instant case--Petition was dismissed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, JUSTICE This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhang, whereby, appeal filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 7.7.2009 of the learned trial Court was set aside and their suit for declaration was decreed as prayed for. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondents No. 2 and 3, after purchase of weaving factory from Respondents No. 4 to 9, became consumers of the disputed electricity connection and at that time, the same was disconnected, but subsequently, it was got restored by them after paying arrears amounting to Rs. 17,340/- and they started paying the monthly bill regularly for the energy consumed by them. Afterwards, the petitioners issued detection bill of Rs. 48850/- against Respondents No. 4 to 9, who assailed the same through institution of a declaratory suit styled as"Muhammad Ishaq vs. WAPDA, etc.", which remained fail and detection bill was ultimately paid in installments to the petitioners in pursuance of order passed by the learned District Judge, Jhang. In this view of the matter, there was left nothing on the part of premises or consumers of the utility, but in June, 2000, the petitioners again sent a detection bill of Rs. 55,135/- on the basis of an audit note No. 46 dated 05.07.1995 without issuance of any show-cause notice, which was…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492