Lahore: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday restrained the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) from taking coercive action against a consumer’s residential electricity connection over disputed dues allegedly payable by a separate industrial concern.
The court issued the direction while disposing of Writ Petition filed by Ghazi Khan, brother of Special Assistant to Prime Minister for Industries and Production Haroon Akhtar Khan, and directed the competent LESCO authority to treat the petition as a representation and decide the matter within two weeks after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel contended that his client’s residential electricity connection was separate, independently metered and fully paid. He argued that the alleged liability pertained exclusively to the industrial connection of M/s Superior Textile Mills Limited and could not legally be recovered by threatening disconnection of an entirely separate domestic connection.
The counsel submitted that the residential connection had its own reference number, meter, billing record and payment history and that no outstanding liability had been established against the petitioner in respect of the domestic connection.
He further argued that Section 24(1) of the Electricity Act, 1910, did not authorize LESCO to use one consumer’s residential connection as a means of recovering dues allegedly owed by another consumer or in respect of separate premises. He maintained that issuance of the prescribed notice and observance of due process were mandatory before disconnection.
The counsel cited several judgments, including Kohinoor (Gujjar Khan) Mills Ltd. versus Islamabad Electric Supply Co., in which it was held that electricity supply to separate premises could not be discontinued for recovery of another consumer’s liability merely because the same person happened to be a director.
He also relied upon judgments holding that a consumer could not be condemned unheard and that disconnection
without prior notice and due process was unlawful.
The petitioner’s counsel alleged that the industrial liability itself was disputed and pending before the competent forum. Therefore, he argued, it could not be treated as an admitted or finally recoverable liability to justify coercive action against the petitioner’s residential connection.
The counsel also invoked Articles 4, 9 and 10-A of the Constitution, arguing that electricity constituted a basic necessity of life and that arbitrary disconnection would violate fundamental rights.
He cited Supreme Court and Lahore High Court precedents recognizing access to electricity as connected with the constitutional right to life.
After hearing the arguments, the court remitted the petition and its annexures to Respondent No. 2, directing the authority to treat it as a representation and decide the matter through a speaking order within two weeks.
The court specifically directed that the matter be decided in accordance with law and in light of the judgments c
ited by the petitioner.
Meanwhile, the respondents have been restrained from taking coercive measures against the petitioner until a decision is made on his representation. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
