Supply of electricity from the tariff for petitioners, limited liability company, treated in accordance with C2 of the tariff schedule issued by WAPDA for the massive supply of electricity. Subsequently, the Treasury officer, WAPDA, who invoices the applicant in accordance with Tariff R. 3 of the Industrial Electricity Supply List. The petitioner is an industrial organization that carries out activities with the exercise and development of minerals, only the fact that all its capital has been subscribed by the government so as not to pass it off as equivalent to the railways, the MES, the PAF or the cantonal councils. (PLJ 1986 Quetta 187) Power off. Issue a notice to the consumer. Notification failed to be issued. Effect. If a licensee had not asked the consumer to cease his energy supply because the licensee or authority had not paid an assessed amount against him, the court had jurisdiction to issue and issue an order to restore the electricity supply without ordering the deposit of an amount. (MLD 1287 2001) Shutdown of WAPDA`s power supply without notification u/s 24(1), Electricity Act (X of 1910) to the consumer. Lawsuit filed to challenge the legality of recognition invoices with the u/rr application.
1.2, O.39 and p. 151, C.P.C., for instructions to WAPDA to restore supply while waiting or continuing. The Court of First Instance grants the application and the Lower Court of Appeal upholds the Court of First Instance. Plaintiffs/consumers file appeals to challenge competing orders of lower courts denying them the issuance of a mandatory injunction The High Court notes that the plaintiffs have met the requirements for issuing an injunction, accepting appeals, and instructing wapda/defendant to restore power to claimants for the duration of their claims. (NLR 1988 Civil Lah. 696) Non-payment of electricity costs. Power setting. Procedure to be applied by the licensee vis-à-vis the consumer. Subject to written service of at least seven clear days, the licensee may use the procedure for recovery of the amount by bringing an action for recovery of the amount in accordance with the Electricity Act, 1910; cease the supply of energy to such premises and to all premises other than domestic premises which are manifestly in the name of such a consumer. (2000 MLD 2039) Action in declaration. Maintainability.
Circumference. The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The applicant stated that he was not obliged to pay the electricity bills issued on behalf of his former tenants. The plaintiff also filed an application for an injunction to prevent the defendant/WAPDA from demanding payment of the disputed costs until the bill was corrected and requested the restoration of the electrical connection. The defendant/WAPDA claimed that the landlord and not the tenant was responsible for paying the electricity bills. Validity. Section 54-C of the Electricity Act 1910 excluded the jurisdiction of the court only in matters relating to the separation and restoration of energy supply by the licensee, but did not prevent an aggrieved person from bringing an action against an act of the licensee/WAPDA; However, the relief was related to the payment of unpaid dues/fees. The following courts did not recognize that the plaintiff had also filed several appeals unrelated to the payment of contributions, which is why both courts wrongly concluded that the action could not be allowed. The court of first instance could have been denied the facilitation of the reconnection, but other remedies requested by the plaintiff should have been considered and granted.
Electrical connections were installed in the applicant`s premises and disconnected seventeen years ago, but he has remained silent for all these years. Although the above premises were occupied by tenants, the applicant as owner/landlord was a “consumer” within the meaning of paragraph 2(c) of the Electricity Act, 1910. The plaintiff was therefore required to bear the unpaid costs of supplying electricity. The applicant had breached condition No. 16 of the shortened terms of delivery set out in the schedule to the Electricity Regulations, 1937 by extending the supply of electricity to separate parts of its property, which constituted a dishonest withdrawal or unfair consumption of energy under section 26-A of the Electricity Act of 1910. The exemption from restoring electricity supply could not be granted to the applicant until it had paid the outstanding contributions. The plaintiff could not prove that the fees had been miscalculated by the defendant. The action was accordingly dismissed.
(2011 YLR 215). Constitutional jurisdiction. Circumference. Shutdown of the power line. Appeal in the event of civil actions already brought by the applicant. Jurisdiction of constitutional jurisdiction. The remedy in civil actions to deal with situations in which the power line had been closed without legitimate reason, since it was not an appropriate and expeditious remedy and the applicant relied on the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, was justified by law and the facts. The interruption of the power supply to the complainant`s institution was declared without legal authorization and without legal consequences, and it was ordered that it be restored immediately.
(LDP 1988 Lah. 243) Constitutional complaint. Power setting. Following the bankruptcy of one of the applicant`s directors, the supply of electricity to the applicant company was interrupted for other premises. The authority argued that delivery to the other premises could be stopped to recover the outstanding amount. Validity. The two consumers are two different persons The authority did not have the legitimate right to recover the amount from the applicant company or to cease its supply of electricity within the meaning of Article 24(1) of the Electricity Act 1910. The Supreme Court requested the authority to restore the power supply to the applicant`s premises. (2000 MLD 2039) WAPDA`s injunction preventing it from collecting the identification bills and disconnecting the electrical connection was issued as part of a lawsuit against the legality of the identification invoices issued to the plaintiff. Confirmed by the High Court on WAPDA`s appeal. Held: In view of the prima facie reports of the electrical inspector, the case prevailed in favour of the plaintiffs.
(NLR 1988 Civil Lah. 145) Notice of Termination. The delivery of electricity in accordance with § 24 is drastic in nature, as the consumer is deprived of the electricity necessary for life due to the measures taken. Therefore, it is necessary to insist on strict compliance with the provision of p. 24. (PLJ 1996 Lah. 668 (DB) Issuance of a controversial electricity bill. Before checking the meter or issuing the disputed invoice, no notification was given to the defendant, which was a mandatory legal obligation. The meter was not sent to the electrical inspector to discover a defect, and the defendant was punished without the meter being altered. The applicant may not ignore or violate the law and become a judge in his own name in order to deprive the consumer of his rights. (PLJ 2003 Lah.
1213) Civil review. Interruption of supply to the consumer who neglects the fee. The petitioner`s electrical connection was disconnected. The reference to a stop invoice has been delivered. Challenge. Determination. Whether Paragraph 24(1) of the Stromgesetz is applicable to the applicant`s case. Question of. If a consumer does not pay an energy charge or an amount opposed to the consumer by the licensee for the supply of energy to its commercial premises, the licensee may interrupt the consumer`s energy supply.
In the present case, the detection invoice falls within the category of the energy charge assessed by the licensee. Shutdown: The licensee has the right to cut off the electricity if the consumer does not pay a fee for the energy. The Claimant had received a recognition invoice, which was an energy charge assessed by the licensee. The impugned action/separation was fully covered by subsections 24(1), 26-A and 54-C of the Electricity Act. The following courts had rightly applied the provisions of the Electricity Act and had not granted interim measures to the applicant. The application was dismissed. (PLJ 2010 Lah. 172). Constitutional complaint.
The complainant`s complaint was that the authorities had refused him electricity on his premises on the grounds that the predecessor of those premises was late in the electricity connection provided by the authorities. Objection by the authorities that they could not provide the applicant with an electricity meter, since he was the successor of the previous resident and, according to the explanation on page 24 of the Electricity Act 1910, any person who inherited the property was sold by sale, donation, exchange, lease or any other type of the newly established company, was required to pay the amount in default. Validity. The records showed that the predecessor of those premises was an illegal resident and that the authorities had handed over the electricity connection to him without obtaining the necessary documents or verifying whether he owned it, so that the authorities could not refuse the applicant the new electricity connection because of arrears of electricity charges against the illegal resident. The complainant himself could not be incriminated because of the misdeeds of the authorities. Since the predecessor of the premises was an illegal resident, the authorities could not rely on the declaration on page 24 of the Electricity Act of 1910. A constitutional petition was granted in the circumstances. (2004 MLD 1657) Installation of electricity pylons. Electricity, which benefits everyone, and WAPDA, which is allowed to place poles in different locations, could not be prevented from placing electrical wires on poles fixed on the petitioner`s land, as this would be contrary to the public interest.