 |
| Over billing electricity |
بجلی کے بل اور میٹر تنازعات: لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے سول عدالت اور الیکٹرک انسپکٹر کے اختیارات واضح کر دیے
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے
LESCO & others v. Sardar Muhammad Yasin (C.R. No. 182375/2018، فیصلہ مورخہ 01-07-2026) میں ایک اہم فیصلہ دیتے ہوئے بجلی کے بلوں، میٹر کے تکنیکی تنازعات اور سول عدالت کے دائرۂ اختیار سے متعلق اہم قانونی اصول وضع کیے۔
مقدمے کا پس منظر
مقدمہ ایک زرعی ٹیوب ویل کے بجلی کے کنکشن سے متعلق تھا، جس میں 2,05,043 روپے کے بجلی کے بل کو چیلنج کیا گیا۔ صارف کا مؤقف تھا کہ بل میں 19,000 اضافی یونٹس شامل کر کے غیر قانونی رقم وصول کی جا رہی ہے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلٹ کورٹ نے صارف کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا، جسے LESCO نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا۔
ہائی کورٹ کے سامنے یہ بھی نکتہ آیا کہ اصل صارف مقدمہ دائر ہونے سے پہلے فوت ہو چکا تھا، جبکہ مقدمہ تمام ضروری قانونی ورثاء کو فریق بنائے بغیر دائر کیا گیا تھا۔
ہائی کورٹ کے اہم قانونی اصول
1۔ میٹر کے تکنیکی تنازعات کا فیصلہ کون کرے گا؟
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ میٹر کی درستگی، خرابی، ریڈنگ، کیلیبریشن، بجلی کے استعمال کے تخمینے اور دیگر تکنیکی معاملات
Electricity Act, 1910
کے تحت الیکٹرک انسپکٹر کے خصوصی دائرۂ اختیار میں آتے ہیں۔ سول عدالت ایسے تکنیکی معاملات میں الیکٹرک انسپکٹر کا متبادل نہیں بن سکتی۔
2۔ کن معاملات میں سول عدالت کا اختیار برقرار رہے گا؟
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ اگر تنازع میں بجلی چوری، میٹر ٹیمپرنگ، فراڈ، جعلسازی، بدنیتی، جعلی معائنہ رپورٹ یا دیگر سول حقوق کا سوال ہو تو ایسے معاملات صرف تکنیکی نہیں رہتے بلکہ ثبوت طلب تنازعات بن جاتے ہیں، جن کی سماعت سول عدالت کر سکتی ہے۔
3۔ بجلی کمپنی خود ہی منصف نہیں بن سکتی
ہائی کورٹ نے انصاف کے بنیادی اصول
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua
کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ بجلی تقسیم کرنے والی کمپنی خود ہی الزام لگائے، خود ہی تحقیقات کرے، خود ہی ذمہ داری طے کرے، ڈیٹیکشن بل جاری کرے اور پھر اسی فیصلے سے فائدہ بھی اٹھائے، تو یہ انصاف کے بنیادی اصولوں کے خلاف ہے۔ ایسے تنازعات کا فیصلہ غیر جانبدار اور مجاز فورم کرے گا۔
4۔ ڈیٹیکشن بل حتمی ثبوت نہیں
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ
Detection Bill
بذاتِ خود صارف کی ذمہ داری کا قطعی ثبوت نہیں بلکہ بجلی کمپنی کا ایک دعویٰ ہوتا ہے، جسے قانون کے مطابق قابلِ قبول شواہد کے ذریعے ثابت کرنا ضروری ہے۔
5۔ فوت شدہ صارف کے نام پر مقدمہ
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگر اصل صارف فوت ہو چکا ہو تو اس کے حقوق سے متعلق مقدمہ قانون کے مطابق تمام ضروری قانونی ورثاء کو فریق بنائے بغیر برقرار نہیں رہ سکتا۔ اس ضمن میں عدالت نے
Order XXII Rule 3، Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
کے اصولوں کو مدنظر رکھا۔
6۔ موجودہ مقدمے میں کیا فیصلہ ہوا؟
ہائی کورٹ نے ریکارڈ
(Exh.D1)
کا جائزہ لینے کے بعد قرار دیا کہ یہ میٹر کی خرابی یا بجلی چوری کا مقدمہ نہیں تھا بلکہ صارف کے کئی ماہ کے بقایا بل ادا نہ کرنے کی وجہ سے رقم جمع ہوئی تھی، جسے نچلی عدالتیں درست طور پر نہیں سمجھ سکیں۔
چنانچہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلٹ کورٹ کے فیصلے کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے
LESCO
کی سول ریویژن منظور کر لی۔
نتیجہ
یہ فیصلہ بجلی کے صارفین اور بجلی تقسیم کرنے والی کمپنیوں دونوں کے لیے اہم رہنمائی فراہم کرتا ہے۔ اس سے واضح ہوتا ہے کہ ہر بجلی کا تنازع سول عدالت میں نہیں لے جایا جا سکتا۔ اگر معاملہ خالصتاً میٹر کی تکنیکی خرابی یا ریڈنگ سے متعلق ہو تو اس کا فورم الیکٹرک انسپکٹر ہے، جبکہ فراڈ، جعلسازی، بجلی چوری یا دیگر سول حقوق سے متعلق تنازعات پر سول عدالت کا اختیار برقرار رہتا ہے۔
حوالہ:
LESCO & others v. Sardar Muhammad Yasin Civil Revision No. 182375 of 2018 لاہور ہائی کورٹ فیصلہ مورخہ: 01 جولائی 2026 مسٹر جسٹس محسن اختر کیانی
Must read judgement.
C.R. No.182375/2018
9
established in the testimony of DW-1 Kashif Ali meter reader. As a
result whereof, the observation given by the trial Court on issue No.1.
The defendants had not produced evidence to produce on what
account said amount of Rs.205,043/- was mentioned in the deposited
bill and maintained by appellate Court is misreading of technical
evidence available as Exh.D1. Hence, the concurrent judgments and
decrees are against law and fact and this court in revisional jurisdiction
under Section 115 CPC is fully equipped to rectify the wrong in
exercise of jurisdiction in an incorrect manner by the courts below.
Therefore, instant revision is allowed, and the concurrent
findings of the courts below are hereby set aside.
(Mohsin Akhtar Kayani)
Judge
Approved for reporting
Judge
C.R. No.182375/2018
8
Hence, the jurisdiction confine to these technical metering
disputes only therefore, the electric inspector who is performing a
technical role of calibration, functioning of meter, testing procedures,
electrical measurement, estimation of energy where meter is found
defective, for all these functions, the inspector ordinarily based upon
the following reports.
(a)
Lab testing of meter report
(b)
Calibration report
(c)
Inspection notes
(d)
Seal and physical condition of meter
(e)
Connected load
(f)
Consumption history
(g)
Other technical evidence.
Therefore considering all these functions and the mode and
manner in which electric inspector performs its duty, he can pass the
decision accordingly on the basis of above referred provisions of law
including but not limited to inquiries or different accidents, events
inspect any electric metering equipment installed at any consumer
place, prepare these technical reports and give its findings which have
nothing to do with the civil court as no civil court can perform such a
role of electric inspector though, there is no bar to consider these
reports in appropriate cases under the law.
Hence, considering the above referred test, nature of working
of electric inspector vis-à-vis the report, it is clear that the jurisdiction
of civil courts is barred in those matters. I have attended the
proposition based upon the evidence and it appears that it is not a case
of metering dispute nor abstraction of energy and neither theft by
consumer rather simply a calculation dispute where consumer has not
paid the due bills as reflected from the details of Exh.D1 but both the
courts below have not able to reached at just conclusion to consider
the details provided in Exh.D1 for verification of due amount vis-à-vis
the deferred amount from the Exh.D1 statement. The column of
payment speaks volume about the conduct of the plaintiff who has not
paid the due amount on many months and due to the said reason, the
amount has been calculated and this aspect has clearly been
C.R. No.182375/2018
7
cannot be decided by the electric inspector under Section 26(6) of the
Electricity Act, 1910.
(vi) Where dispute concerns allegations of electricity
theft or un authorize abstraction of energy, the civil court
has jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is expressly
excluded by statue hence, controversy require:
(a)
recording of evidence;
(b)
examination and cross examination of witnesses;
(c)
scrutiny of documentary evidence;
(d)
findings on fraud or dishonest conduct
are classical adjudicatory functions which electric
inspector could not perform
(vii) Detection bill is not the conclusive proof of liability,
it is merely the utility claim. Where disputed, its legality
must be establish before competent forum through legally
admissible evidence.
(viii) Electricity authorities cannot act as a judge in their
own cause under the principle of nemo judex in causa sua
hence, the courts strongly discouraged the practice
whereby electricity distribution company detect the theft,
investigate itself, determines liability, issued detection
bill and finally becomes the beneficiary of its own
determination against the principle that no one could be
judged in its own cause.
While considering the above principles, this Court also
evaluated the electric inspector who drives its authority from Section
24, 26, 30, 33, 36, 37 & 38 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and the
electricity rules, 1937 (Inspection & Safety). The electric inspector
most important jurisdiction concerns disputes regarding;
(i)
Whether meter is correct;
(ii)
Whether it records consumption accurately;
(iii)
Whether it has become defective;
(iv)
The period during which it ceased to function
correctly and
(v)
Estimation of consumption for that period
C.R. No.182375/2018
6
and those technical questions could not be answered by any civil court
even after recording of evidence unless the evidence of any Electric
Inspector or technical persons appointed by NEPRA or from Disco’s
appears in the witness box after final order of electric inspector and
NEPRA etc.
In order to demonstrate the justification of above discussion, I
have gone through the judgment reported as PLD 2012 SC 371 (Water
and Power Development Authority and others versus Messrs Kamal
Food (PVT) Ltd. Okara and others), 2011 SCMR 226 (Nisar Ahmad
versus Masood Akhtar and others) PLD 2017 Lahore 769 (MEPCO
and others versus Advisory Board Punjab, Lahore and others) and
PLJ 2018 LAHORE 594 (GEPCO, ETC. VERSUS Pakistan
Television Corporation Ltd, etc.) and comes to the following
principles:
(i)
Dispute regarding the correctness or accuracy of
meter falls within the Section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act,
(ii)
Cases involving dishonest abstraction of energy,
theft of electricity or meter tempering do not fall within
section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910.
(iii) Whether meter is running fast or slow; whether
meter has become defective; whether it correctly record
consumption; all these matters fall under exclusive
jurisdiction of electric inspector under Section 26 (6) of
the Electricity Act, 1910.
(iv) Neither distribution company nor the civil court can
substitute the statutory mechanism where section 26(6) is
attracted.
(v)
Court shall classify the allegations such as:
(a)
Dishonest abstraction of energy;
(b)
Direct hooking;
(c)
Bypassing the meter;
(d)
Fraudulent interference with meter equipment;
are not fall within the concept of meter dispute. All such
allegations involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and
C.R. No.182375/2018
5
forum or tribunal created by that statute, and the Court infers
legislative intention from the object of the Act, rights created by it,
liabilities imposed by it, special tribunal or forum constituted by it, and
the remedies provided by and finality attached to the tribunal or forum
decision, as in this case under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910
read with section 38 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission
and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997. Therefore, four tests
have been laid down for consideration of exclusion by implication test
in the following manner:
Test 1: Has the statute created a new right or liability? If the answer
is yes, it points towards implied exclusion.
Test 2: Has the statute also created a special forum?
If the answer is yes, then it points towards exclusion.
Test 3: Can the forum grant complete relief?
If the answer is yes, then it points towards exclusion.
Test 4: Is the jurisdiction of the tribunal or forum intended to be
exclusive?
If the answer is yes in the test results, then in all these cases, the
jurisdiction of civil courts stands excluded by implication, and in
this regard, civil jurisdiction could not be exercised.
However, in case any final judgment or final order has been
passed by the Electric Inspector considering the mandate of section 38
of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997, the aggrieved person by any decision or
order of the Provincial Office of Inspection may, within 30 days of the
receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the authority established under
the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997, which has been established in terms of
section 3 of the said Act, notified by the Federal Government in the
official Gazette, which is a body corporate having perpetual
succession and a common seal, with power subject to the provisions
of this Act.
Therefore, there is no cavil to the proposition that those
technical forums of the Electric Inspector as well as of NEPRA are the
exclusive forums for determination of technical subjects of all electric
operators, their disputes with regard to consumption, metering, etc.
R. No.182375/2018
4
This Court has also attended the proposition with reference to
section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910, based upon its subsection (6),
which is reproduced as under:
[(6) Where any difference or dispute arises between a license and a
consumer as to whether any meter, maximum demand indicator or
other measuring apparatus is or is not correct the matter shall be
decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electric
Inspector, within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of
such application, after affording the parties an opportunity of being
heard, and where the meter, maximum demand indicator or other
measuring apparatus has, in the opinion of the Electric Inspector,
ceased to be correct, the Electric Inspector shall estimate the
amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity
contained in the supply, during such time as the meter, indicator or
apparatus has not, in the opinion of the Electric Inspector, been
correct; and, where the Electric Inspector fails to decide the matter
of difference or dispute within the said period or where either the
license or the consumer decline to accept the decision of the Electric
Inspector, the matter shall be referred to the Provincial Government
whose decision shall be final:
From the plain reading of the above-referred provision of the
Electricity Act, it appears that in a dispute between the licensee and a
consumer with regard to meter, maximum demand indicator, or
measuring apparatus, either party has to approach the Electric
Inspector within a period of 90 days. On the date of receipt of such
application, the Electric Inspector has to extend due right of hearing
and shall settle the dispute, including but not limited to the energy
supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the
supply or with regard to the apparatus. Such aspect exclusively falls
within the domain of the Electric Inspector, primarily on the reason
that this is a technical subject which cannot be touched by nontechnical authorities, including the courts, especially civil courts.
However, in the absence of an ouster clause or barring provision which
ousts the jurisdiction of a civil court, this Court has to consider the
exclusion by implication test.
While considering the statutory scheme, it is demonstrated
that disputes of a particular class must be exclusively decided by the
C.R. No.182375/2018
3
the very intention of the lawmaker was to settle technical disputes by
authorities possessing technical expertise; thus, the jurisdiction of civil
courts stands excluded by necessary implication on those matters
which squarely fall within the subject matter of the Electric Inspector
or are entrusted to the Electric Inspector. Similarly, on the other hand,
if we go through section 45 of the Regulation of Generation,
Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, which
accords overriding effect to the Act and rules, regulations, and licenses
issued thereunder over inconsistent laws, hence the concept has to be
appreciated in terms of 2023 SCMR 1407 (Messrs Rajby Industries
Karachi and others versus Federation of Pakistan and others) 2021
SCMR 1308 (Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan and others
versus Acro Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Multan and others)
2021 PTD 1355 SC (Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan and
others versus Acro Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Multan and
others) & 2017 SCMR 1218 (Syed Mushahid Shah and others versus
Federal Investment Agency and others). However, if the controversy
involves issues which the office of inspection is incompetent to
determine, such as fraud, forgery, fabrication of inspection report,
mala fide exercise of statutory powers, declaration of civil rights, title
to property, and contractual rights, then the jurisdiction of civil courts
remains intact under section 9 of CPC, as no provision of the
Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric
Power Act, 1997 confers jurisdiction upon statutory authorities to
adjudicate such independent civil rights.
On the other end, the jurisdiction of civil courts has been
considered in terms of section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, and such
concept is an exception where special statutes create a special remedy
and that remedy should ordinarily be followed. However, exclusion of
civil jurisdiction is not readily inferred, as held in 2008 SCMR 1577
(University of the Punjab versus Miss. Wajiha Arooj), whereby it was
held that even where a statute bars the jurisdiction, civil courts may
interfere if the impugned action is void, without jurisdiction, mala fide,
or based on fraud.
C.R. No.182375/2018
2
Conversely, the respondent has proceeded ex-parte vide order
dated 12.09.2018 recorded in the order sheet.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Perusal of the record reflects that the respondent Abdul
Kareem filed a civil suit for declaration with injunction, challenging
the electricity bill issued by the petitioner company against the
installed consumer
No.45117351862500R,
amounting to
Rs.2,05,043/-, with the contention that 19,000/- extra units could not
be charged. In this regard, the respondent appeared as PW-1, Sardar
Muhammad, though he is not the actual consumer, and even Para 1 of
the plaint clearly reflects the following:
ہیہکدبعارکلمیاضقےئالہیےسوفتوہاکچےہدمیع نشکنکویٹبولیںیمرتشمہکہصحدارےہاسےیلدوعیذہا برہعی
رسداردمحمیسنیسدمحمسس یدا ئایکاجراہےہ.
Considering this aspect, it is settled law that no suit is maintainable
against a dead person or to be filed on behalf of a dead person without
impleading the legal heirs, as required under Order XXII, Rule 3 CPC,
but this aspect was ignored by the courts below.
I have also attended the proposition with regard to section 38
of Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric
Power Act, 1997, which requires the provincial government to
establish provincial offices of inspection of specified technical
disputes between electricity consumers and the distribution company.
Similarly, the office of inspection is entrusted with matters relating to
correction of electricity meters, meter testing, billing disputes,
assessment of electricity consumption, collection of electricity
charges, and complaints regarding the implementation of directions
issued by the distribution companies. The provision further provides a
statutory appellate remedy before NEPRA against the decision of the
office of inspection; thus, the Act creates a complete adjudicatory
hierarchy for technical consumer disputes relating to electricity
supply, although section 38 does not contain any provision declaring
the jurisdiction of civil courts barred or bar of jurisdiction.
In this regard, the legislature has refrained from incorporating
any express ouster clause in the Regulation of Generation,
Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997. However,
Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Case No.
C.R. No.182375/2018
LESCO & others
Versus
Sardar Muhammad Yasin
Sr.No.of order/
Proceedings
Date of order/
Proceedings
Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel,
where necessary.
01.07.2026
Mr. Khalid Jameel, Advocate for the petitioners.
Respondent is ex-parte.
Rana Shamshad Khan, Addl. A.G. on Court’s call.
Through this Civil Revision, LESCO has assailed the
concurrent findings of the Civil Court as well as the learned Additional
District Judge in appeal, dated 04.07.2016 and 14.12.2017, passed by
the courts below, whereby a suit for declaration filed by the
respondent, challenging the electricity bill for the month of April 2011
amounting to Rs.2,05,043/- with the claim that the same was
excessive, has been decreed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit for
declaration filed by the respondent is not maintainable in terms of
section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, as well as in terms of section
38 of The Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 and even otherwise the respondent is not the
consumer as per record, and he filed the suit on behalf of a dead person
without impleading the legal heirs, which itself is reflective of the fact
that the entire proceedings are coram non judice, but the courts below
have not appreciated this aspect. It is lastly contended that the
respondent was charged with the consumed units as per the reading,
and he had not paid the due amount as reflected from the details
Exh.D1 brought on record, which gives the complete details of monthwise consumption as well as the balance amount against the
consumption and consumer No.45117351862500R, which has been
used for seven-and-a-half-horsepower motor for water supply to the
agricultural land.