Before the Advisory Board, Irrigation & Power Department,

Government of the Punjab, Lahore.

MEPCO etc. Vs. 1. Electric Inspector, Multan.

2. Al-Noor Ice Factory, Chishtian.

Appeal against the order dated 3.10.2001 passed by the

respondent No. 1 (Electric Inspector, Multan).

Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 2

Respectfully Sheweth: -

Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the appeal is time-barred, hence liable to be dismissed.

2. That the appellants have disregarded deliberately the orders of

the learned Electric Inspector, Multan and inspite of the fact
that Circle Manager, M & T Bahawalpur was present
alongwith his staff at X.E.N.’s office, Chistian (Annex “A”),
showed high-handedness and did not participate in checking
of metering equipment. Not only this, they also discontinued
the supply of Feeder, just to create hurdle so that the officer
deputed by the learned Electric Inspector, Multan, may not
check the metering equipment. Minimum expectation from
public functionaries or from functionaries of a public statutory
corporation is to adhere to law and orders passed by the
Tribunals/Courts and it is their legal and statutory duty as
well. In the given situation, not only the appeal is liable to be
rejected but action on account of willful and intentional
 disrespect of a competent forum created under law may also
be initiated under the contempt of court ordinance, 1998.

3. That the functionaries of a public statutory corporation are

duty bound to abide by the directions passed by a forum of
competent jurisdiction whereas the circumstances show clear
deliberate violation on the part of appellants no. 2 & 4. The
person who has violated law can not avail remedy under the
same law. Hence, the appeal is liable to be rejected/dismissed.

ON FACTS: -

1. That the contents of para No. 1 of the appeal are not admitted.
All the exercise of checking of meter by appellants was based
on malafide as the appellants No. 2 & 4 had become inimical
with the respondent No. 2 when he refused to join hands with
them in their malpractices. The meter was functioning
correctly on 19.6.2001 and it was not 32.45% slow, rather it
seemed to be running fast. The detection bill issued by the
appellants on account of so-called slowness was also wrong,
illegal and without any lawful justification.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 are not admitted. The wrong,
illegal and unjustified bills were paid just to avoid
disconnection of supply as the respondent No. 2 has no other
alternate in the peak of season. What cannot be cured must be
endured. The sword of disconnection in the hands of
appellants has very drastic results. Machinery comes to a halt.
The business is ruined and it becomes very difficult to
recover, revive and survive. The payment was made in
compelled circumstances.

3. That the contents of para No. 3 are not correct. The

respondent No. 2 never accepted the slowness of meter as it
was actually not slow. The matter was brought before the
learned Electric Inspector Multan being competent forum
under the laws of Pakistan. The order date 3.10.2001 passed
 by the learned Electric Inspector, Multan is absolutely within
four-corners of law.

4. That in reply to para No. 4, it is submitted that the order dated

3.10.2001 is in accordance with the facts of the case and
covered under law.

5. That the order dated 13.10.2001 is valid in the eyes of law

according to the facts and circumstances of the case as per
replies below to sub paras of the

GROUNDS

a) That the respondent No. 1 served a notice to the parties

to the case with directions for checking of meter in
presence of both the parties on 25.9.2001. The Circle
Manager M&T Bahawalpur along-with his staff was
present on 25.9.2001 in the office of appellant No. 2
where appellant No. 4 was also present. Memo No.
2076-800/MT-2/CTN dated 28.9.2001 of Circle
Manager, M&T, Bahawalpur is annexed as “A” to
prove the presence of concerned officers of MEPCO at
Chishtian on 25.9.2001. The A.E.I. (the officer deputed
by the learned Electric Inspector, Multan) reached in
the office of appellant No. 2 and asked to accompany
him for checking of metering equipment, but the
MEPCO functionaries resisted and did not co-operate
with him. As explained in para No. 2 of preliminary
objections, the action of appellants was deliberate and
requires to be dealt with under the contempt of court
ordinance, 1998. So far as the action of officer of the
Hon’ble Forum is concerned, it was quite in line with
the provisions of law. The authorised officer had no
alternate but to check the meter in presence of
consumer/respondent No. 2 and two respectables of the
area. The meter was running fast @ 55.83% which was
proved to be correct by the appellants own checking
 result on 29.9.2001 but they removed the check meter
just after 1-1/2 hour saying that check meter has
become defective, whereas it was working correctly and
indicated that the factory’s billing meter was running
fast.

b) That it was totally unjustified to ask the consumer to

deposit 50% of the excessive detection bill prepared
under malafide intention, specially, when the meter was
not functioning slow. Moreover, according to the
provisions of law, the 50% amounts of disputed bill is
to be deposited with the Electric Inspector and not with
the appellants.

c) That the appellants No. 2 & 4 have not behaved like

law abiding persons. They discontinued the supply of
feeder on 25.9.2001 till late hours in the evening, so the
meter cold not be checked on that day. Consequently,
the Assistant Electric Inspector checked the metering
equipment on 26.9.2001. MEPCO functionaries
(appellants No. 2 &4) are not above law. The
representative of a competent forum cannot bear the
high-handedness of the appellants No. 2 & 4. He has to
perform his duty, which he did under the law.

d) That as already explained in foregoing para No. 1, the

meter was not running slow. The season for less
consumption in the running season than last season is
not slowness of meter. Actually, the appellants No. 2 &
4 (being inimical towards the respondent No. 2) shifted
the D-phases/cut-links, to 3 poles before the factory
whereas the same were installed at 4th or 5th pole after
the factory. By this act of malice and malafide, the
appellants used to disconnect the supply from the said
D-phases/cut-links. Consequently, the consumption in
the current season had decreased beside causing
considerable financial loss to the respondent No. 2.
 However it may be noticed that it was not far less but
just in proportionate to the period of intentional
disconnection of the supply by appellants No. 2 & 4.

e) That the report of respondent No. 1 based on the factual

and actual functioning of meter on 26.9.2001. The
reason for less computation in the current season has
been given in sub-para (d) above. Moreover, the
fastness of meter has also been confirmed by the
appellants own M&T formation as the meter has been
declared more fast than 55.83% (as per Annex “F” of
appeal, it was 135.7% fast).

f) That this sub-para relates to the respondent No. 1 as

some technical aspects have been discussed in it.
Howver, one thing is specially pointed out that
behaviour of KVARH meter cannot be relied upon and
made the base for charging detection bill because in
MEPCO’s own report dated 19.6.201, the KVARH
meter was found dead stop (Annex “A” of appeal) and
in their report dated 17.10.2001 (Annex “F” of appeal)
the same KVARH meter has advanced from 207707
reading to 280838 reading upto 16.10.2001. So, the
behaviour of existing KVARH meter cannot be made
the basis of charging any detection bill. The appellants
always charge slowness from previous months from
consumers but they do not dare to allow refund to the
consumer from previous months.

g) That the options offered by appellants mean like or

lump. These are not binding upon the respondent No. 2.
The meter is running fast, which is secured in A.T.B.,
duly welded and sealed. Security slips provided on
A.T.B., were also intact. The respondent No. 2
challenged the appellants No. 2 & 4 to make the meter
fast or slow by whatever technical means if they can,
but without disturbing the status of A.T.B./meter. If
 they, being technical experts, cannot do so then how a
non-technical consumer can disturb the functioning of
meter well secured in A.T.B.?
7. That the report of respondent No. 1 is not arbitrary. Even if a
party does not participate in the checking exercise, the competent
forum can proceed under law and declare its findings. Needless
to say that the findings of the Hon’ble Forum of Electric
Inspector, Multan, has been corroborated by the report of
MEPCO’s Circle Manager, Bahawalpur.

It is well established that slow meter may

become more slow gradually but it does not become
fast latter on automatically. Similarly, a fast running
meter may function constantly at the same speed or it
may become more fast in future months. In the instant
case, either the meter was running fast ( at whatever
rate or speed) since the date of its installation or it
developed fault when digital display was washed out
and it started running fast.

PRAY: -
In view of the above humble submissions, it is
requested that: -
i) The decision of the learned Electric Inspector,
Multan dated 3.10.2001 may kindly be upheld.
ii) The KWH M.D.I. meter may kindly be declared
to be fast @ 55.83% since the date of its
installation or the date of washing out digital
display as deemed fit in the interest of justice and
accounts overhauled accordingly.
iii) Special attention of this Hon’ble Board is also
invited towards the deliberate disregard of the
directions of a competent forum and frustrated
the proceedings on 25.9.2001. The matter may
kindly be referred to solicitor or proceedings
against the appellants No. 2 & 4 may kindly be
initiated under the Contempt of Court
Amendment Act.

Humble Respondent No. 2,

Dated: _______

Through: -
M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri,
Advocate High Court,
28-Distric Courts, Multan.
 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF CONSUMPTION OF CORRESPONDING MONTHS
OF YEAR 1998-99-2000, IN RESPECT OF NISAR ICE FACTORY, MULTAN.

Month KWH units charged. M.D.I. charged. Months KWH units charged M.D.I. charged
Oct/98 8788 50 Oct/99 10094 40
Nov/98 24 0 Nov/99 13881 40
Dec/98 62 0 Dec/99 0 0
1/99 92 42 Jan/2000 0 0
2/99 0 1 Feb/2000 193 2
3/99 0 1 Mar/2000 0 38
4/99 97 1 Apr/2000 0 0
5/99 21298 6 May/2000 7521 42
Total 30361 31689
6/99 35889 0 June/2000 38428 59 (with slowness charges).
Grand total 66250 70117