Before the Advisory Board, Govt. of the Punjab, Lahore.

Appeal No. SAB (I&D)-18-44/2002

MEPCO etc. Vs. Musaddaq Hussain

Appeal against the decision dated 8.3.2002,

passed by the Electric Inspector, Multan.
Written statement on behalf of respondent.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the contents of para No. 1 are correct to the extent that, at
present, the respondent is consumer of MEPCO and not
WAPDO, since the taking over and acquiring of
responsibilities/liabilities and all rights of former Area
Electricity Board, WAPDA, Multan by MEPCO.
2. That the contents of para 2 are related to MEPCO’s own
interoffice correspondence. So far as the status of meter as
dead stop is concerned, the checking by MEPCO was
unilateral and without serving any prior notice to the
respondents.
3. That the contents of para No. 3 are not admitted. The
detection bill of Rs. 5,49,841/- was absolutely wrong, illegal
and unlawful as neither the respondent was given a chance to
participate while assessment of the so-called detection bill nor
prior notice was served upon the respondent before issuing the
impugned detection bill so the same was challenged before the
learned Electric Inspector, Multan Region, Multan.
4. That the whole bill of Rs. 5,49,841/- is wrong, illegal and
unjustified as the tannery was not functioning since long due
to very crucial financial circumstances and consequent
business crises. The electric energy was not consumed during
the disputed period when the meter recorded very less
 consumption, because during the crises specially from
(11/2000 to 3/2001) the machinery was operated just for
technical requirement to keep the same in working order.
Thereafter, the drums were cleaned and work closed. The
learned Electric Inspector, Multan has reduced the period of
charging in view of consumption of corresponding previous
months but it is not the case of such comparison of
consumption. The respondent’s contention is quite different as
the factory did not work during disputed period, hence, the
consumption remained low.
5. That the order dated 8.3.2001 passed by the Electric Inspector
Multan, is legal, within jurisdiction and with lawful authority.
However, the respondent deserves more relief as the tannery
was not functioning during disputed period as already
explained above, on the following among other: -
GROUNDS
a) That the contents of sub para (a) are not admitted. The
appellants did not serve any notice to respondent prior
to checking of meter or before assessment of so-called
detection bill. The appellants violated the law. One who
violated law, cannot claim remedy under the same law.
One who seeks equity must do equity.
b) That the contents of sub para (b) are not admitted.
Actually, the machinery was lying stand still. Electric
energy was not used except for lighting purpose and a
small ordinary water pump.
c) That the contents of sub para (c) are not admitted. The
consumption data was to be considered when the
factory would have been running in usual routine. The
factory did not function at all and this fact was in the
knowledge of appellant No. 6 (S.D.O. Wilayat Abad
Sub-Division, Multan) who used to check the meter and
record monthly readings regularly. He used to reset the
M.D.I. every month, so it is unbelievable that he could
not observe the sudden fall in consumption, and keep
 on sleeping for months together. The respondents were
duty bound to get the meter checked at that time to find
out the fact as it is the duty of respondents to keep the
meter correct. The appellant No. 6 continued recording
readings and re-setting M.D.I. uptill 7/2001, but could
see or point out no discrepancy. So, the respondent’s
case is quite different and not a case of comparison of
consumption with previous months.
d) That the contents of sub para (d) are not admitted. The
reasons have already been explained in the foregoing
para.
e) That the contents of sub para (e) are incorrect. The
order is arbitrary. It is legal in the eye of law, but if
considered technicality, the respondent deserved more
relief, because it is not a case of comparison of
consumption with corresponding previous years as
already explained above.
f) That the impugned detection bill of Rs. 5,49,841/- is
absolutely unjustified, ab-initio wrong and illegal and
liable to be set aside.
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the
appeal of the appellants may kindly be rejected
with costs and impugned detection bill of Rs.
5,49,841/- may kindly be declared illegal,
unjustified, ab-initio wrong and not payable by
the respondent.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble
Tribunal deems fit, may also be granted.
Humble Respondent,
Dated: _______
(Musaddaq Hussain)
Through: -
M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.