ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD

C.P.No.D-553 of 2009

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

PRESENT

1. MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM J.

2. MR. JUSTICE AHMED ALI SHAIKH J.

04.11.2009.

Petitioner in person.

Syed Mujeeb Alam Shah, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3

AHMED ALI SHAIKH J Through this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has prayed as under:-

a) To declare that the acts of the respondents not providing the transformer and electric connection and demanding an amount of Rs.1,95,563/- towards alleged “units showing consumed” 16296 in advance are illegal, capricious in excesses of their lawful authority and powers, ultra vires and without jurisdiction;

b) To direct the respondents jointly and severally to provide and install transfer of 50 KV and electric connection at Petitioner’s Housing Scheme for which Petitioner has deposited amount in the Account of Respondent No.1.

c) To grant any other relief deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case;

From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has launched a Housing Scheme under the name and style of “Fatima Housing Scheme” at Deh Miano Taluka and District Hyderabad. The petitioner approached the Respondents for installation of the transformer and electricity connection for the aforesaid Housing Scheme, following which the Respondent No.1 issued Demand Note of Rs.3,97,058/- and a bill of Rs.15000/- for the cost of material and installation of electricity connection. The Petitioner deposited the said amount in the bank in the account of Respondent No.1. It is the case of petitioner that inspite of the deposit of the demanded amount, the Respondents No.1 & 2 did not install the transformer and failed to provide the electricity connection to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that he moved applications on 17.02.2009 and 17.03.2009 by which he requested the Respondent No.1 for installation of 50 KV transformer and electricity connection but the Respondents did not pay any heed. On one hand, the Respondents failed to install transformer and electricity connection to the petitioner and on the other hand the Respondent No.3 issued an advance bill of Rs.1,95,563/- showing consumption of 16296 units with directions to the petitioner to pay the said bill in advance for three months and thereafter his request for installation of transformer and electricity connection would be considered. The petitioner further pleaded that vide letter No.MOG-I/HESCO/D.B/3724 dated 26.03.2009 the Respondent No.2 again required the Petitioner to make payment of 16296 units in advance bill. The petitioner has called in question, the acts of the Respondents by which they were avoiding to install the transformer and electricity connection to him besides demanding the payment of Rs.1,95,563/- in advance interalia, on the ground that actions of the Respondents were absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without lawful authority.

The Respondents filed their comments, in which they have taken the plea that the amount paid by the petitioner was not the bill of electricity consumption and the payment made by the petitioner was towards cost of the material, out of which Rs.15000/- was the security deposit. In their comments, the Respondents further pleaded that it was the routine practice of the department to receive the payment of 16296 units amounting to Rs.1,95,563/- in advance, which amount is adjustable towards consumption after installation of the electricity meters. The Respondents denied the averments made in the petition.

The factum of receipt of the payment through demand note dated 22.10.2009 for Rs.3,97,058 and Rs.15000/- was not denied by the Respondents. When the Respondent’s counsel was asked as to provision of Electricity Act, under which advance bill of the payment is required to be paid, once the Respondents have received the requisite amount for transformer, equipments and security deposit, he could not offer plausible explanation except that he contended that it was the practice of the Respondents to issue such bills in advance as security. We find that demand note annexure “B” contains word “Security Deposit”, which has already been deposited by the petitioner. Moreover, neither the transformer nor the electricity connection has been installed by the Respondents and the advance bill issued by the Respondent No.3 is not covered under any provision of law. The learned counsel for the Respondents had failed to justify such advance bill. We accordingly hold that after receipt of the security deposit, demand by way of advance bill by the Respondents was without lawful authority.

For the foregoing reasons, we have allowed this petition as prayed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the officers who were guilty in issuance of such fictitious bill by our short order dated 29.10.2009.

JUDGE.