BEFORE THE ADVISORY BOARD,

GOVT. OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE.

Appeal No. 118-5/2002

MEPCO Ltd. Multan etc. Vs. Nisar Hussain

Appeal against order dated 4.10.2001, passed by

Electric Inspector, Multan Region, Multan.

Written statement on behalf of respondent.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -
1. That the appellant No. 1 was neither a party as defendant in
petition before the Electric Inspector, Multan Region, Multan
nor the said appellant applied to the learned forum to be added
as party to the case showing that its interests would be
seriously affected if not joined as a party. So, appellant No. 1
cannot join as party at this stage.
2. That the appellant No. 1 has no cause of action, even no locus
standi, so the appeal is not competent to the extent of
appellant No. 1.

ON FACTS: -
The parawise replies are given as under: -
1. That contents of para No. 1 are not correct. The respondent is
not a consumer of appellant No. 1, at present. The MEPCO
Ltd. Multan was incorporated on 14.5.1998 and allowed to
commence its business on 9/10-6-1998, under the Companies
Ordinance, 1984. (Copies of relevant certificates issued by the
Registrar of Companies are Annexes “A & B”).
2. That contents of para No. 2 are not admitted. The M & T
Division and Operation Division are sister formations of
MEPCO. The checking result of M & T may be an internal
matter of MEPCO, but have no value or authenticity in the
eyes of law. This unilateral checking without prior notice was
challenged in the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Bench at
Multan. Thereafter, it was directed to the Electric Inspector,
Multan for adjudication.

3. That contents of para No. 3 are not correct, hence not

admitted. The detection bill was issued arbitrarily and notice
was just a formality otherwise, the appellant miserably failed
to accept the offer of respondent with reference to that notice,
for installation of check meter to determine the factual
position or get the meter checked by an impartial agency. The
appellants stated that checking result of M & T is correct and
final. As a matter of fact, the checking without prior notice
was in violation of laws. The controversial issue was referred
to appropriate forums for seeking justice, as the meter was
functioning correctly and not slow.

4. That the contents of para No. 4 are not admitted. However, the
case was before the learned Electric Inspector, Multan for
adjudication and any arbitrary and unilateral action of
appellants before the decision of the Electric Inspector,
Multan was against the law and natural justice. It is on record
that the appellants had been charging so-called slowness
continuously.

5. That the contents of para No. 5 need no comments.

6. That the contents of para No. 6 are admitted but, subject to

findings and final decision by the learned Electric Inspector,
Multan.

7. That contents of para No. 7 are not correct. The meter did not
remain slow throughout the previous months. The meter was
being checked by the appellant No. 5, regularly every month.
Besides this regular checking, the meter was also checked
 from time to time by different checking teams, but no
discrepancy was ever pointed out prior to 26.5.2000. This
checking was actually wrong and illegal as it was just a
revengeful act. It is specifically pointed out that the appellant
No. 5 checked the meter on 4.7.2001, the MDI was 40 K.W.
Again, he checked reading on 5.8.2001, MDI was 40 K.W.,
and when checked by representative of the Electric Inspector,
Multan on 7.8.2001, the M.D.I. was 20 K.W. and meter was
66% slow. It clearly shows that the meter became 66% slow
by developing some defect between 5.8.2001 to 7.8.2001 and
not before.

8. That the reply to para No. 8 has already been given in para
No. 4 above.

9. That the para No. 9 needs no comments.

10. That the reply to para No. 10 is submitted that order dated
4.10.2001 is absolutely correct, valid in the eyes of law,
within legal jurisdiction and lawful authority. Hence, replies
to sub-paras are given below accordingly: -

A) The appellants did not serve any notice before checking

the meter. The appellants violated the express provision
of law. A person violating the law cannot claim any
right/remedy under the same law. However, the
respondent’s case is a different one as it was referred to
learned Electric Inspector, Multan under the directions
of Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan,
so the condition of serving prior notice by respondent
(consumer) to appellant does not apply in this case.

B) That the meter of respondent was not found slow on all

occasions. It was checked by M & T along-with
appellant No. 3 & 5 on 9.6.1999 and found within
B.S.S. The checking of meter on 26.5.2000 was
malafide and cannot be relied upon and also challenged
by respondent. Later on, the appellants (specially
appellant No. 5) created hindrance intentionally and did
 not co-operate in checking the meter by the learned
forum and used to pressurise respondent for giving
undertaking for changing the C.T.S. but the respondent
always refused as the case was subjudice before the
learned Electric Inspector, Multan. It is on the record
that this matter was delayed for a considerable long
period till 8.7.2001, when the checking was carried out
by the learned forum (Electric Inspector, Multan).

C) That the contents of sub-para (c) are not correct. The

appellants have determined period from 9/99, whereas
there is a break between the two seasons. The meter had
been checked regularly by appellant No. 5 and he found
no discrepancy before 26.5.2000. Moreover, M.D.I.
cannot be considered the only factor to determine
slowness of meter. In the respondent’s case, the drop in
M.D.I. was due to decrease in load as already explained
in detail before the Electric Inspector and it is case of
appropriate load management by technical expert.

D) That the learned Electric Inspector, Multan has rightly

determined the charging period in the light of decision
by the Hon’ble WAPDA Mohtasib in complaint No.
L/325/91 (R) and L/335/91 (R) in L/7535/90 and
previous decision announced by the learned Electric
Inspector, Multan in the light of above referred
decision. (Copy is attached as Annex “C”).

E) That the order dated 4.10.2001 is correct, legal, within

four-corners of law.

F) That this sub-para needs careful consideration .

i) The respondent is not consumer of appellant No. 1 at

present. As already pointed out in preliminary
objections, MEPCO Ltd. Multan incorporated and
commenced its business under Companies Ordinance,
1984 in May/June 1998. MEPCO Ltd. Multan
acquired/took over all properties, liabilities and rights
 of the administrative division of WAPDA, formerly
known as the Multan Area Electricity Board (AEB)
Multan, pursuant to the Pakistan Water and Power
Development Authority Act of 1958 (as amended) etc.
(Copy of pages 1 & 6 of M.O.A. are Annexes “D &
E”).

ii) A copy of novation of Electricity supply agreement is

annexed as (F). The contents of this agreement proves
that MEPCO & WAPDA are two different bodies i.e.
different legal persons in the eyes of law. Apparently,
there is no relation between the two.

iii) Even if, just for the sake of arguments, the appellant
No. 1 is considered to be a party, then the objection
should have been raised at the earliest opportunity, at
least, before the learned Electric Inspector, Multan
Bench, Multan. So, this cannot be stressed or agitated in
this appeal now. Inference has been drawn relying on
case reported in PLD 1987 (Pesh) 62. In the humble
opinion of respondent, even if such right existed, will
be considered as waived off.

iv) So far the question of dismissing the application of

respondent (applicant) or remanding or referring back
the dispute to learned Electric Inspector, Multan for
making fresh decision is concerned, it is submitted that
appellants (defendants) having not raised plea of
misjoinder or non-joinder of parties in the written
statement could not raise the same before appellate
court. No decree would be reversed in appeal on
account of any misjoinder of parties. Any decision
which is correct on merits and within jurisdiction of
court making it, would not be upset by appellate court
merely on grounds of technicalities or immaterial
defects. No suit would be defeated by reason of
 misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. Reliance has been
made on case law 1991 CLC 1801.

v) The case law 1996 CLC 172 referred by appellants is

not relevant to the respondent’s case as it is absolutely
different and not identical to the facts of the case before
this Hon’ble Board.

It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed

that the order dated 4.10.2000 passed by the learned
Electric Inspector, Multan may very kindly be up-held
declaring the same as legal, justified, within jurisdiction
and within lawful authority rejecting the appeal with
costs throughout.
Humble Respondent
Dated: 13.4.2002

Through: -
M. Ashraf Nadeem Sabri,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.