HYDERABAD, Oct 13: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, has restrained Hesco authorities from removing the meters of 10 petitioners from their residences with directives to the petitioners to pay current and future bills for energy consumed by them.

The bench comprised Mr Justice Shabbir Ahmed and Mr Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.

The 10 petitioners who moved the court through lawyer Hassan Mehmood Baig included M Afzal Arain, Alim Din, Rahat Ali, Dr M Taqi, Mirza Shafique Baig, Syed Qasim Ali, M Yameen, Ms Anwar Jehan, Afroz Alam, and Nazim Ali. All were residents of Unit No6 Latifabad.

Wapda through its chairman, Wapda House Lahore, Hesco, through its Chief Executive, Superintending Engineer Circle-I, Hesco, Executive Engineer, Latifabad, and Sub-Divisional Officer have been cited as respondents.

The petitioners claimed that all of them had separate points of electricity to their premises and were provided separate meters by the respondent Hesco officials with separate accounts. They added that they were getting separate electricity bills regularly and were making the payment of the same since long.

They maintained that they had not committed any breach of the agreement under which the department was supplying them electricity. Recently, they said, in September some of the petitioners received notices from Shaheed Umed Ali Sub-Divisional office of Hesco, Latifabad, requiring them to explain as to why more than one metre was installed in their houses and such explanation should reach the office within three days, otherwise the meters would be removed and only one connection would be allowed to them.

They said that they had replied to the notices but the SDO, Hesco, Latifabad sub-division, removed the meters from the houses/bungalows of the petitioners.

The petitioners termed the action as mala fide and illegal, causing harassment to the petitioners, and putting them in trouble.

They argued that it was common knowledge that there were a number of families, living in a house but were holding separate and independent electricity meters/accounts. Some of the owners had rented out their premises out of their residences to the tenants and provided them separate meters from the very beginning.

The recent action of respondents would result in unnecessary problems to be faced by them.

The petitioners informed the court that they had sent communications to the chairman, Wapda, as well as other authorities but they did not get any response. They claimed that such action was taken illegally only to increase the revenue in an unfair manner at the cost of the welfare of the citizens.

Referring to the Electricity Act 1910, they said under section 2(c) of section 22 of this act a consumer was entitled to have more than one point for being supplied energy on the premises, and for that purpose he/she did not need to have or own separate premises.

They added that a consumer was required to submit an application and the agreement with Wapda for supply of energy in the prescribed form, and then according to specific conditions the department has to give energy to the consumer at one or more points, and the department was required to install/maintain correct meters at each point of supply on the consumer’s premises. Such meters could only be removed in case the consumers required its removal.

The respondents were bound by the agreement and could not remove the meters when there was no breach of terms of agreement as apparent from the notices and the bills.

They said that the SDO had issued notices under the instructions of other senior officials who had also been made respondents.

They prayed the court to declare the notices issued to them as illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority, and that the respondents should be restrained from removing meters installed on the premises of the petitioners for supplying electricity. They also requested the court that they be provided the meters which were removed.

The court fixed the matter for Oct 24. It directed the respondents not to remove the meters from the houses or premises of the petitioners and interfere with such meters in any manner. It also asked the petitioners to pay all bills for the energy consumed.