-Bill of excess units---As per well-settled' principles of law, in matters relating to examining and working of metering equipment and other similar apparatus, Electric Inspector, on account of possessing special expertise, has jurisdiction to entertain reference under Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910--Civil Court has no jurisdiction in suchlike matters, only Electric Inspector has powers to take cognizance thereof-

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 481

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----O.VII R. 10--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Electricity Act, 1910. S. 26(6)--Return of plaint--Bill of excess units--Powers of electric inspector--Jurisdiction--Challenge to--As per well-settled' principles of law, in matters relating to examining and working of metering equipment and other similar apparatus, Electric Inspector, on account of possessing special expertise, has jurisdiction to entertain reference under Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910--Civil Court has no jurisdiction in suchlike matters, only Electric Inspector has powers to take cognizance thereof--Rightly observed that Civil Court is not equipped with required instruments or expertise to evaluate technicality of claim, thus, matter squarely comes within domain of Electric Inspector and thus, rightly returned plaint under allowing revision petition filed by respondent-WAPDA--Petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in impugned order of Revisional Court--Petition was dismissed.   [Pp. 483 & 484] A, B & C

PLD 2012 SC 371 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Sharif Zahid, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Atique-ur-Rehman Sheikh, Advocate/Legal Advisor for Respondent-WAPDA.

Date of hearing: 12.1.2022.

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 481
Present: Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J.
MUHAMMAD ANWAR--Petitioner
versus
WAPDA through Chairman Wapda House, Lahore and others--Respondents
W.P. No. 73222 of 2021, decided on 12.1.2022.

Order

Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed vires of order dated 28.10.2021, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, whereby respondent-WAPDA's revision petition against order dated 12.01.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge, was allowed and plaint of the suit filed by petitioner, was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the matter pertains to issuance of correct bill as per units consumed, therefore, Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. He further submits that observation of learned Additional District Judge that the matter has already been decided by the Ombudsman is wrong, as the said matter was regarding some other bill and had no nexus with the controversy involved in this case. He further submits that material aspects of the matter have been overlooked while passing impugned order, hence, same is unsustainable in the eye of law. In support, he relied upon Multan Electric Power Company Ltd. through "Chief Executive and another v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 328).

3. Conversely, learned Legal Advisor for respondent- WAPDA defends the impugned order.

4. Heard. Available record perused.

5. Perusal of record shows that the matter in hand was earlier agitated before the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman)'s, Secretariat by way of filing complaint against respondent-WAPDA, which was withdrawn by the petitioner's side vide order dated 15.10.2014 upon assurance of respondent-WAPDA that the premises of complainant would be re-checked and excess units, if any, would be withdrawn, consequent whereof bill in question would be revised as per reading on the meter. The relevant part of said order is reproduced hereunder:

          "The complaint pertained to charging of unjust detection bill. The complainant requested for redressal of his grievance.

2. The Agency in its report dated 26.08.2014 informed that the premises of the complainant would be re-checked, and excess units if any would be withdrawn to redress his grievance.

3. Joint hearing held. Both parties were present and heard. On receiving assurance from the Agency's official that his bill would be revised as per reading on the meter, the complainant agreed to withdraw his complaint.

4. In view of the above, further investigation of the above complaint is closed in terms of Regulation 23(1)(f) of the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Investigation and Disposal of Complaints) Regulations, 2013. Compliance be reported within 30 days from the receipt of these findings."

6. Even otherwise, the dispute pertains to the bill of excess units relating to electricity meter vide reference No. 19- 11722-1643200R for the agricultural connection in Mauza Sanda, Chastana, Tehsil & District Kasur. As per well-settled' principles of law, in the matters relating to examining and working of metering equipment and other similar apparatus, Electric Inspector, on account of possessing special expertise, has jurisdiction to entertain reference under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. Civil Court has no jurisdiction in suchlike matters, only Electric Inspector has powers to take cognizance thereof. Learned Revisional Court, while referring to case law reported as Water and Power Development Authority and others v. Messrs Kamal Food (Pvt.) Ltd. Okara and others (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 371), rightly observed that Civil Court is not equipped with

required instruments or expertise to evaluate the technicality of
the claim, thus, the matter squarely comes within the domain of Electric Inspector and thus, rightly returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC by allowing the revision petition filed by respondent-WAPDA.

7. Petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order of learned Revisional Court. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner being distinguishable, is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case.

8. Resultantly, instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed