–from Lusignan building

ACTING Chief Justice, Mr.Ian Chang, S.C., on Tuesday made absolute a nisi order which had ordered Guyana Power and Light Company to show cause why its decision, to seize a meter and disconnect electricity from a Lusignan business premises, should not be quashed. The Chief Justice was delivering a decision relating to the applicant Lin Chuntao who had applied to the court for writs of certiorari and mandamus. And the Chief Justice had issued a rule nisi directed to the respondent compelling them to return forthwith the meter and to reconnect electricity to the building situated at 173 Lusignan, East Coast Demerara on the grounds that the said decision was unlawful, unreasonable, without or in excess of jurisdiction and of no legal effect. In her affidavit in support of motion the applicant deposed that on the 8th day of May 2012, she rented the property situated at 173 Lusignan. She was a residential consumer of electricity provided under contract by the GPL, a statutory body corporate charged statutorily with the supply of electricity to the residents of Guyana, including the applicant. She later applied to the power company for a pre-paid meter. On or about the 27th September, 2013, employees of GPL came to her premises and installed meter No. 0395332 until such time as a pre-paid meter would become available. On the 27th December 2013, employees of GPL removed the meter leaving her premises without electricity. When her husband enquired of GPL why the company had removed the meter, he was told that the applicant was indebted to GPL in excess of $3 million. However, she deposed that GPL had never written or informed her of any amount owing to it nor did she receive a bill from GPL showing that she was so indebted. GPL also told her that there was a suspicion that she was stealing electricity. She further deposed that the meter was installed by GPL on a post outside of her premises and she had no access to that meter. The Chief Justice said that in relation to the first limb of Section 14 (8) of the said Act, the court does not take the view that Section 14(8) imposed upon a consumer an absolute obligation of safe keeping of the public supplier’s meter. Otherwise, every consumer would be rendered an insurer of the safety of GPL’s meter. As such, the mere interference with the meter by an unauthorised person does not ipso facto mean that the consumer is in breach of Section 14(8). Clause 4.3 of GPL’s licence (not exhibited by the respondent in the Affidavit in Answer but referred to by counsel for the respondent) is a stipulation which affects GPL and the grantor of the licence and cannot effectively enlarge the rights of GPL as against the consumer – although it operates as a restriction on the exercise of such rights, i.e. not to estimate the unrecorded consumption of a consumer beyond 24 months. As a clause stated in GPL’s licence which, does not have the force of law or even contract vis-à-vis the consumer, clause 6.4 cannot be used to derogate from the rights of the consumer in favour of GPL. If anything, it can be restrictive of the exercise of GPL’s rights under ordinary law. Again, this court fails to see how the relationship between GPL and the grantor of its licence can lawfully affect the legal relationship between GPL and its consumers unless of course the stipulations of the licence are reflected in the contract between GPL and the consumer or form part of public law. GPL was in effect blandly saying to the court that the decision or act of GPL must be presumed to be lawful simply because there is a record kept by GPL which states that the applicant had failed to keep the meter safe from interference and had benefitted from an unremetered supply of electricity caused by the connection of a by-pass conductor. Counsel for the respondent submitted that, in judicial review proceedings, the courts adopt a relaxed attitude to the reception of hearsay evidence because, in such proceeding, there are rarely substantial disputes of fact. The court finds that the respondent (GPL) has failed to satisfy that its decision or act of disconnection was lawful or rational. Accordingly, orders or Rules nisi of certiorari and mandamus made on the 10th January 2014 must be made absolute. The court so ordered and no order was made as to costs. Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Huckumchand appeared for the applicant, while Attorney, Mr. Timothy Jonas represented the respondent.

(By George Barclay)