KARACHI, Feb 11: Justice Shabbir Ahmed of the Sindh High Court directed on Monday the KESC to restore electricity to Sabzazar Lawns today, if not yet done, under the supervision of the official assignee or his nominee, and restrained the utility from further disconnections, subject to payment of current dues and arrears/future charges, as ordered by the court.

The court passed the order in the applications pertaining to suit No 66/97.

When the matter came up before Justice Ahmed, counsel for the KESC Sohail H. K. Rana stated that electricity had been restored today (Monday) by removing the fault.

But the plaintiff, present in the court, stated that he had inquired by phone but he was informed that electricity had not yet been restored. He was represented by Syed Sami Ahmed and S. Jalil Hashmi.

At this stage deputy chief law officer of the KESC stated that there was an estimate of Rs20,000 for removing 10 defects in the underground cables. He further stated that she personally visited the offices of the plaintiff for service of notice for payment of charges, but the plaintiff allegedly avoided to make payment.

As the plaintiff, in the court, agreed to pay the said amount, the court directed him to deposit the same on Monday with the Nazir of the court and the defendant would remove the defect, if not yet removed, by Monday, and to collect the amount from the Nazir. Non-collection of the amount would be a hindrance in the way of restoration of electricity, the order said.

On the previous date of hearing, on Feb 8, the official assignee had filed his interim report before Justice Wahid Bux Brohi, in compliance with his order of Feb 4.

The KESC counsel had raised objections and he was directed to file the same with the court the next day. Ms Zahida Chaudhry, deputy law officer of the KESC, had stated that she had personally approached the official assignee, requesting him to get an undertaking in writing from the plaintiff so that necessary work of restoration of electricity, in accordance with the court’s order, be undertaken. She had claimed that the same had not been obtained from the plaintiff.

Syed Sami Ahmed had given such an undertaking outright in the court to pay the cost. The plaintiff, who was also present in the court, had also given this undertaking. Counsel for the defendants were satisfied.

The court had, nevertheless, clarified to the KESC that the order dated February 4, 2002, “is manifestly clear on this point, yet in order to provide another chance to the defendants the above undertaking is obtained. Formal undertaking in writing may be furnished in due course of time, but that shall not be the ground for delaying the process of implementation of order of this court.”