Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 25 2018 SLD 25 2018 PLJ 87
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 38130 of 2015, decided on 17.10.2016. Date of hearing: 17.10.2016.
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE
Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Muhammad Younas, Advocate for
Respondents.

LESCO THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LAHORE ETC.

VS

M/S. TAJ INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Electricity Act, 1910

Section: 26(6)

Law: Regulation of Generation Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997

Section: 38

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 1910)-- ----S. 26(6)--Regulation of Generation transmission and distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, S. 38--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Constitutional Petition--Detection Bill--Illegal abstraction of energy--Meter tampering--Detection bill--Petition accepted--Appeal dismissed--Limitation--Challenge to--After analyzing consumption data came to conclusion that technically there was nothing wrong with impugned meter during disputed period till its damage by some employee of company on 30.1.1997 were also advanced to charge revised bill for period from 30.1.1997 to date of replacement of impugned changed meter--No misreading and non reading on record has been showns in findings of fact recorded by Respondent No. 2 which was also upheld by Respondent No. 3--Impugned order by Respondent No. 2 was passed after 90 days prescribed in Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, admittedly said objection was never raised before authorities below--Even in this constitutional petition this ground has not been raised--Aforesaid ground was never raised by petitioners before appellate authority or even in this constitutional petition, therefore, this ground cannot be raised verbally at time of arguments--It also not specified in petition that when petition was entertained and when 90 days were expired, hence ground being mixed question of law and facts cannot be allowed to raised verbally unless specifically agitated before forabelow and also in this constitutional petition--Petition dismissed. ORDER This constitutional petition has been filed against order dated 30.12.2014 passed by Respondent No. 2 and order dated 28.05.2015 passed by Respondent No. 3. 2. Brief facts are that Respondent No. 1 was charged with detection bill of Rs. 6983689/- for period from March, 1996 to January, 1997. Respondent No. 1 challenged detection bill before Respondent No. 2 under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 (Electricity Act) and Section 38 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (NEPRA Act). Respondent No. 2 accepted petition on 30.12.2014 in capacity of Provincial Office of Inspection (POI).…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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