Fuel Price Adjustment
Transcript of Fuel Price Adjustment
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 1 of 67
JUDGMENT SHEET.
IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
1. Writ Petition No. 2972- 2011 M/S Karachi Steel Mills, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
2. Writ Petition No. 3168-2011 M/S Shandar CNG , etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
3. Writ Petition No. 3208 of 2011 Malik Associates CNG Vs. Fed. Of Pakistan, etc.
4. Writ Petition No. 3235 of 2011 M/S Best Way Cement Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan etc.
5. Writ Petition No. 3243 of 2011 M/S All Pakistan CNG Association Vs. Govt. of Pakistan,
6. Writ Petition No. 3366 of 2011 Barrister Abu Bakar Sehri, etc. Vs. NEPRA, etc.
7. Writ Petition No. 3422 of 2011 M/S Ellahi Cotton Mills Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
8. Writ Petition No. 3453 of 2011 M/S Insaf Steel Re-Rolling . Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.
9. Writ Petition No. 3480 of 2011 M/S Taxila Cotton Mills etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
10. Writ Petition No. 127 of 2012 M/S J-R Steel Re-Rolling Mills. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc
11. Writ Petition No. 164 of 2012 M/S Cherat Cement Company Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
12. Writ Petition No. 165 of 2012 Kohat Cement Company. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
13. Writ Petition No. 166 of 2012 M/S Mujahid Enterprises, etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
14. Writ Petition No. 212 of 2012. M/S Hattar Steel RE-Rolling Mills. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
15. Writ Petition No. 499 of 2012. M/s Al-Hadeed Industries . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
16. Writ Petition No. 501 of 2012. Northern Bottling Company . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc
17. Writ Petition No. 519 of 2012. M/s Syntronics Ltd . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc
18. Writ Petition No. 530 of 2012. M/s Best way Cement Ltd. . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc
19. Writ Petition No. 650 of 2012. Sitara Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
20. Writ Petition No. 651 of 2012. M/s Al-Hadeed Industries . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc
21. Writ Petition No. 714 of 2012. M/sAl. Hamid Corporation Ltd. . Vs. Wapda, etc
22. Writ Petition No. 715 of 2012. M/s Fecto Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
23. Writ Petition No. 718 of 2012. Service Industries. Vs. Wapda, etc
24. Writ Petition No. 722 of 2012. M/s Kohinoor Mills . Vs. Wapda, etc
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 2 of 67
25. Writ Petition No. 723 of 2012. M/s Kohinoor Mills . Vs. Wapda, etc
26. Writ Petition No. 724 of 2012. Mapple Leaf Cement Ltd. vs. Wapda, etc.
27. Writ Petition No. 727 of 2012. Madina Steel Industries Vs. Wapda, etc.
28. Writ Petition No. 728 of 2012. Service Industries . Vs. Wapda, etc.
29. Writ Petition No. 729 of 2012. Bismah Textile Mills . Vs. Wapda, etc.
30. Writ petition No. 730 of 2012 DG Khan Cement Company Vs. Wapda, etc.
31. Writ Petition No. 732 of 2012. M/S Shan Steel. Vs. Wapda, etc.
32. Writ Petition No. 735 of 2012. Fawad Textile Mills. Vs. Wapda, etc.
33. Writ Petition No. 736 of 2012. Hussain Mills, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
34. Writ Petition No. 742 of 2012. M/s Delhi Muslim Ice Factory. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc. .
35. Writ Petition No. 748 of 2012. Fatima Enterprises etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
36. Writ Petition No. 756 of 2012 M/S HAR Textile Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
37. Writ Petition No. 764 of 2012. M/S Pioneer Cement Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
38. Writ Petition No. 765 of 2012. M/S Flying Cement Company Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc.
39. Writ Petition No. 768 of 2012. M/S Premium Textile mills . Vs. Wapda, etc.
40. Writ Petition No. 769 of 2012. Saphire Textile Vs. Wapda, etc.
41. Writ Petition No. 771 of 2012. Hassan Ltd. etc. Vs. Wapda, etc
42. Writ Petition No. 772 of 2012. Thal Ltd.. Vs. Wapda, etc.
43. Writ Petition No. 774 of 2012. New City Steel. Vs. Wapda, etc.
44. Writ Petition No. 775 of 2012. Shoaib Salman Textile Mills Ltd Vs. Fed. Of Pakistan, etc.
45. Writ Petition No. 776 of 2012. Shamsi Textile Industries etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
46. Writ Petition No. 788 of 2012. Reliance Weaving Mills etc.. Vs. Fed. Of Pakistan, etc.
47. Writ Petition No. 789 of 2012. Reliance Weaving Mills Vs. F.O.P, etc.
48. Writ Petition No. 790 of 2012. Kamran Steel Mills, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
49. Writ Petition No. 791 of 2012. Chanar Sugar Mills . Vs. F.O.P, etc. .
50. Writ Petition No. 792 of 2012. Modern Flour Mills. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
51. Writ Petition No. 793of 2012. Al-Harmain Flour Mills. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
52. Writ Petition No. 798 of 2012. M/S Nadia Steel, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
53. Writ Petition No. 800 of 2012. M/S Techno Fabrics pvt. Ltd. etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
54. Writ Petition No. 801 of 2012. M/S Malik Ice Factory Vs. Wapda, etc.
55. Writ Petition No. 810 of 2012. Fatima Enterprises. Vs. Wapda, etc.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 3 of 67
56. Writ Petition No. 811 of 2012. Allah Wasaya Spinning Mills . Vs. Wapda, etc.
57. Writ Petition No. 812 of 2012. M/S BM Steel Industry. Vs. Wapda, etc.
58. Writ Petition No. 828 of 2012. Kohinoor Spinning Mills Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc.
59. Writ Petition No. 841 of 2012. M/ S Xtreme Thrill Vs. Wapda, etc.
60. Writ Petition No. 842 of 2012. The Monal Restaurant Vs. Wapda, etc.
61. Writ Petition No. 902 of 2012. ACRO Textile Vs. F.O.P etc.
62. Writ Petition No. 727 of 2012. Madina Steel Industries etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
63. Writ Petition No. 903 of 2012. DG Khan Cement. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
64. Writ Petition No. 904 of 2012. Tauqir Steel Mills, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
65. Writ Petition No. 905 of 2012. North Star Textile etc. Vs. F.O.P etc.
66. Writ Petition No. 920 of 2012. Arfeen Industries Pvt. Ltd. . Vs. F.O.P, etc.
67. Writ Petition No. 925 of 2012. M/S A.H Steel, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
68. Writ Petition No. 946 of 2012. M/S Bhimra Textile Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
69. Writ Petition No. 959 of 2012. Shadab Textile Mills. Vs. Wapda, etc.
70. Writ Petition No. 971 of 2012. Gulistan Textile Mills. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
71. Writ Petition No. 972 of 2012. Capital Steel, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc. .
72. Writ Petition No. 973 of 2012. Nishat Mills Ltd. Vs. F.O.P, etc
73. Writ Petition No. 974 of 2012. Rana Aashiq Ali , etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
74. Writ Petition No. 975 of 2012. Muhammad Jamshed Khalid Vs. Wapda, etc.
75. Writ Petition No. 976 of 2012. M/s Kamalia Steel Furnace Vs. Wapda, etc.
76. Writ Petition No. 977 of 2012. Liaqat Steel Industries Vs. Wapda, etc.
77. Writ Petition No. 978 of 2012. M/s Talib Hussain Vs. Wapda, etc.
78. Writ Petition No. 979 of 2012. Mehmood Hussain Haji Maqsood Ali Vs. Wapda, etc.
79. Writ Petition No. 980 of 2012. Sh. Nasim Iqbal Vs. Wapda, etc.
80. Writ Petition No. 981 of 2012. Muhammad Khalid Vs. Wapda, etc.
81. Writ Petition No. 982 of 2012. Siara Textile etc. Vs. F.O.P. etc.
82. Writ Petition No. 983 of 2012. M/s Riaz Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
83. Writ Petition No. 994 of 2012. M/S Malik Board & Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
84. Writ Petition No. 995 of 2012. M/s Sayed paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
85. Writ Petition No. 996 of 2012. M/s Shalimar Steel etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
86. Writ Petition No. 997 of 2012. Asia Spinning Mills Vs. F.O.P, etc. .
87. Writ Petition No. 998 of 2012. Shahpur Textile Vs. Wapda, etc.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 4 of 67
88. Writ Petition No. 999 of 2012. Allahwasaya Textile, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
89. Writ Petition No. 1000 of 2012. Idrees Textile Mills etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
90. Writ Petition No. 10004 of 2012. Ali Haq Spinning Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.
91. Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2012. M/s Atas Paper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
92. Writ Petition No. 1016 of 2012. Mughal Steel etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
93. Writ Petition No. 1017 of 2012. Chakwal Textile, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc. .
94. Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2012. M/S Sarwar Rubber Industry etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
95. Writ Petition No. 1019 of 2012. Hashmi Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
96. Writ Petition No. 1020 of 2012. D.S Industries Ltd., etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
97. Writ Petition No. 1021 of 2012. Abu Bakar Textile Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
98. Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2012. M/S Azam Knit & Dyeing etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
99. Writ Petition No. 1028 of 2012. Al Shafi Steels, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
100. Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2012. Bajaj Spinning Mills etc. . Vs. F.O.P, etc.
101. Writ Petition No. 1033 of 2012. M/S Taj Steel Mills etc.. Vs. Wapda, etc.
102. Writ Petition No. 1034 of 2012. Model Town Co-operative Society Lahore Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.
103. Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2012. M/S Omer Tissue pvt. Ltd. etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
104. Writ Petition No. 1036 of 2012. M/S Sartaj Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
105. Writ Petition No. 1040 of 2012. M/S MLW Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
106. Writ Petition No. 1041 of 2012. Ch. Muhammad Shafique, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
107. Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2012. The Qadri Brothers Pvt. Ltd, . Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.
108. Writ Petition No. 1043 of 2012. The Qureshi Wool Industries. Vs. F.O.P, etc.
109. Writ Petition No. 1044of 2012. M/S Qadri Engineering Pvt. Ltd Vs. F.O.P, etc.
110. Writ Petition No. 1045 Mushtaq Cold Storage, Vs. Wapda, etc.
111. Writ Petition No. 1047 of 2012. M/S Faras Combin Pvt. Ltd etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
112. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2012. Dawood Spinning, etc. Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.
113. Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2012. M/S Zaman Papers & Board Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.
114. Writ Petition No. 1051 of 2012. M/s Muhammad Younis. Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.
115. Writ Petition No. 1054 of 2012. Qutab Textile Mills, etc. Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.
116. Writ Petition No. 1060 of 2012. M/S Anmol Paper Mills. Vs. Wapda, etc.
117. Writ Petition No. 1063 of 2012. M/s Malik Steel Centre Ltd. Vs. Fed. Of Pakistan, etc.
118. Writ Petition No. 1064 of 2012. Queta Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.
119. Writ Petition No. 1065 of 2012. Khurram steel etc. Vs. FOP.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 5 of 67
120. Writ Petition No. 1068 of 2012. Ravi Textile Mills etc Vs. FOP etc.
121. Writ Petition No. 1070 of 2012. Dandot Cement Co. Vs. Wapda, etc.
122. Writ Petition No. 1071 of 2012. Barkat Textile Mills etc Vs. Wapda, etc.
123. Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2012. Three Star Hosiery Vs. Wapda, etc.
124. Writ Petition No. 1086 of 2012. Waheed Shahzad Plastic works, LHR Vs. Wapda, etc.
125. Writ Petition No. 1087 of 2012. Lessee of Lasani Cold Storage, LHR Vs. Wapda, etc.
126. Writ Petition No. 1090 of 2012. Nabeel Industries Vs. FOP, etc.
127. Writ Petition No. 1092 of 2012. Bhatti Cotton Links Vs. FOP, etc.
128. Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2012. M/s Qadria Board Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.
129. Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2012. M/s Asmy Dyeing & Printing Vs. Wapda, etc.
130. Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2012. M/s Silko Processing Factory Vs. Wapda, etc.
131. Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2012. M/s Hamza Steel etc Vs. Wapda, etc.
132. Writ Petition No. 1102 of 2012. Siddique Engineering etcVs.FOP etc.
133. Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2012. M/s Masif Steel Industries Vs. FOP, etc.
134. Writ Petition No. 1108 of 2012. Haleeb Foods Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
135. Writ Petition No. 1113 of 2012. Mushtaq Ahmed Vs. Wapda, etc.
136. Writ Petition No. 1118 of 2012. Malik Javed, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
137. Writ Petition No. 1123 of 2012. Farooq Spinning Mills etc. Vs. FOP, etc.
138. Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2012. M/S MHA Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc.
139. Writ Petition No. 1143 of 2012. Ali Steel, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
140. Writ Petition No. 1144 of 2012. Taimoor Spinning Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
141. Writ Petition No. 1149 of 2012. M/s Haleem paper Mills, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
142. Writ Petition No. 1159 of 2012. M/S Awan Cotton Waste Factory etc Vs. Wapda, etc.
143. Writ Petition No. 1163 of 2012. Muhammad Saeed, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
144. Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2012. Noor Enterprises etc. Vs. FOP, etc.
145. Writ Petition No. 1169 of 2012. Muhammad Yaqoob, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
146. Writ Petition No. 1175 of 2012. Ghulam Nabi, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
147. Writ Petition No. 1179 of 2012. Ittehad Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
148. Writ Petition No. 1180 of 2012. M/S New Hafiz Steel Furnace Vs. Wapda, etc.
149. Writ Petition No. 1181 of 2012. Fair Deal Weaving Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.
150. Writ Petition No. 1188 of 2012. M/S Reliance Ply Wood Industry Vs. Wapda, etc.
151. Writ Petition No. 1205 of 2012. Hilal Textile Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 6 of 67
152. Writ Petition No. 1221 of 2012. M./S Maqbool Ice Factory etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
153. Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2012. M/S Umer Ishfaq Ice Factory, Cold storage Vs. Wapda, etc.
154. Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2012. Inco Pipe Industry Vs. NEPRA, etc.
155. Writ Petition No. 1245of 2012. Mughal Ittehad Board Vs. FOP,. etc.
156. Writ Petition No. 1248 of 2012. M/S Asad Rice Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.
157. Writ Petition No. 1251 of 2012. Gulistan Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc. .
158. Writ Petition No. 1253 of 2012. M/S Capital Steels Vs. FOP, etc.
159. Writ Petition No. 1328 of 2012. Service Industries Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
160. Writ Petition No. 1329 of 2012. Imperial Textile Mills. Vs. Wapda, etc.
161. Writ Petition No. 1330 of 2012. Colony Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
162. Writ Petition No. 1345 of 2012. M/S Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc.
163. Writ Petition No. 1358 of 2012. M/S Cables & Conductors ltd. Etc. Vs. FOP, etc..
164. Writ Petition No. 1365 of 2012. Afaq Steel Vs. FOP, etc.
165. Writ Petition No. 1366 of 2012. Al-Hamd Corporation Vs. FOP, etc.
166. Writ Petition No. 1367of 2012. Combine Spinning Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc.
167. Writ Petition No. 1368 of 2012. Nishat Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc.
168. Writ Petition No. 1372 of 2012. Ch. Muhammad Shafique . Vs. Wapda, etc
169. Writ Petition No. 1373 of 2012. Al Haq Spinning Mills. Ltd. Etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
170. Writ Petition No. 1378 of 2012. Map Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.
171. Writ Petition No. 1402 of 2012. ACRO Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc.
172. Writ Petition No. 1403 of 2012. Ihsan Sons Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Vs. FOP, etc.
173. Writ Petition No. 1405 of 2012. Mehar Dastagir Textile . Vs. Wapda, etc.
174. Writ Petition No. 1406 of 2012. Din Textile Mills . Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.
175. Writ Petition No. 1412 of 2012. JK Teck Pvt. Ltd. . Vs. FOP, etc.
176. Writ Petition No. 1413 of 2012. Mehmood Textile Mills. Vs. FOP, etc.
177. Writ Petition No. 1423 of 2012. Ittefaq Cotton Waste Factory etc. Vs. FOP, etc.
178. Writ Petition No. 1436 of 2012. Hussain Mills, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
179. Writ Petition No. 1437 of 2012. Fawad Textile. Vs. Wapda, etc.
180. Writ Petition No. 1438 of 2012. . Sitara Chemical Vs. Wapda, etc. .
181. Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2012. . Marral Fiber Mills etc. Vs. FOP, etc
182. Writ Petition No. 1456 of 2012. . M/s Nabeel Paper & Board Mills Vs. FOP, etc
183. Writ Petition No. 1459 of 2012. . Fecto cement Vs. Wapda, etc
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 7 of 67
184. Writ Petition No. 1460 of 2012. .Bisma Textile Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
185. Writ Petition No. 1461 of 2012. Ahmed Fine Textile Vs. FOP, etc
186. Writ Petition No. 1463 of 2012. A.A Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc
187. Writ Petition No. 1478 of 2012. ACRO Spinning & Weaving Mills Vs. FOP, etc
188. Writ Petition No. 14 85 of 2012. . Fauji Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc
189. Writ Petition No. 1494 of 2012. . Steel complex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc
190. Writ Petition No. 1495 of 2012. .Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc
191. Writ Petition No. 1501 of 2012. Rafiq Spinning Mills. Vs. FOP, etc
192. Writ Petition No. 1503 of 2012. SM Qadir Sugar Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
193. Writ Petition No. 1504 of 2012. M/S Premium Textile Vs. Wapad, etc
194. Writ Petition No. 1506 of 2012. Qadri Textile Mills etc. Vs. FOP, etc
195. Writ Petition No. 1521 of 2012. Arzoo Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
196. Writ Petition No. 1522 of 2012. Arzoo Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
197. Writ Petition No. 1523 of 2012. M/S Pioneer Cement Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc
198. Writ Petition No. 1524 of 2012. M/S Flying Cement Co. Vs. Wapda, etc
199. Writ Petition No. 1528 of 2012. Muhammad Saeed, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc
200. Writ Petition No. 1535 of 2012. Makkah paper & Board, etc. Vs. FOP, etc
201. Writ Petition No. 1546 of 2012. M/S Classic Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. GOP, etc
202. Writ Petition No. 1548 of 2012. M/S United Ice Factory etc. Vs. Wapda, etc
203. Writ Petition No. 1552 of 2012. Bilal Textile Vs. Wapda, etc
204. Writ Petition No. 1574 of 2012. M/S Usman Goraya Yarn Industries Vs. Wapda, etc
205. Writ Petition No. 1575 of 2012. Muhammad Akram, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc
206. Writ Petition No. 1582 of 2012. M/S Gasco 2000 CNG Vs. GOP, etc
207. Writ Petition No. 1591 of 2012. Rahim Bakhsh Board Mills Vs. GOP, etc
208. Writ Petition No. 1615 of 2012. Ellcot Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc
209. Writ Petition No. 1627 of 2012. Dandot Cement Co. Vs. Wapda, etc
210. Writ Petition No. 1628 of 2012. Three Star Hosiery Vs. Wapda, etc
211. Writ Petition No. 1686 of 2012. Fazal Rehma Fibrac Vs. FOP, etc
212. Writ Petition No. 1687 of 2012. Siara Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
213. Writ Petition No. 1688 of 2012. Reliance Weaving Vs. FOP, etc
214. Writ Petition No. 1706 of 2012. Abdul Rehman Khattak Vs. Wapda, etc
215. Writ Petition No. 1773 of 2012.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 8 of 67
Apollo Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
216. Writ Petition No. 1774 of 2012. Shafi Texcel Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc
217. Writ Petition No. 1800 of 2012. Master Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
218. Writ Petition No. 1819 of 2012. M/S Liaquat Steel Industry etc Vs. FOP, etc
219. Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2012. M/S New Steel Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc
220. Writ Petition No. 1821 of 2012. M/S Shadab Textile Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc
221. Writ Petition No. 1824 of 2012. Mehtabi spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc
222. Writ Petition No. 1847 of 2012. M/s Riaz Bottlers Pvt. Ltd etc Vs. Wapda, etc
223. Writ Petition No. 1849 of 2012. M/s MLW Industry Vs. Wapda, etc
224. Writ Petition No. 1850 of 2012. M/s Malik Board & Paper Industries Vs. Wapda, etc
225. Writ Petition No. 1851 of 2012. M/s Saeed Paper Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
226. Writ Petition No. 1852 of 2012. M/s Qadria Board Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
227. Writ Petition No. 1853 of 2012. Golden Fabric Vs. FOP, etc
228. Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2012. Ayesha Textile etc Vs. FOP, etc
229. Writ Petition No. 1855 of 2012. Black Gold etc Vs. FOP, etc
230. Writ Petition No. 1856 of 2012. Allah Wasaya Textile Vs. FOP, etc
231. Writ Petition No. 1860 of 2012. M/s Faisal Spinning Mills Ltd Vs. FOP, etc
232. Writ Petition No. 1866 of 2012. Dawood Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc
233. Writ Petition No. 1879 of 2012. Umer Tissue Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
234. Writ Petition No. 1880 of 2012. M/s UBC Conertech Vs. Wapda, etc
235. Writ Petition No. 1881 of 2012. M/s Park Lane Towers Ltd etc Vs. Wapda, etc
236. Writ Petition No. 1886 of 2012. Shah Pur Textile Mills etc Vs. Wapda etc
237. Writ Petition No. 1887 of 2012. Haleeb Foods Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc
238. Writ Petition No. 1895 of 2012. M/s Faras Combine Pvt etc Vs. Wapda, etc
239. Writ Petition No. 1897 of 2012. Nisar Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc
240. Writ Petition No. 1898 of 2012. M/s Jawaid International etc Vs. Wapda, etc
241. Writ Petition No. 1900 of 2012. M/s Kamal Steel Mills etc Vs. Wapda, etc
242. Writ Petition No. 1904 of 2012. Gulistan Textile Vs. FOP, etc
243. Writ Petition No. 1905 of 2012. Choti Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
244. Writ Petition No. 1911 of 2012. Allah Wasaya Textile Vs. FOP, etc
245. Writ Petition No. 1912 of 2012. Allah Wasaya Vs. FOP, etc
246. Writ Petition No. 1921 of 2012. Khalid Nazeer Spinning Vs. FOP, etc
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 9 of 67
247. Writ Petition No. 1926 of 2012. Bilal Qadeer etc Vs. Wapda, etc
248. Writ Petition No. 1927 of 2012. M/s Islamabad Steel Furnace etc Vs. Wapda, etc
249. Writ Petition No. 1928 of 2012. M/s Ali Steel Industries Vs. Wapda, etc
250. Writ Petition No. 1937 of 2012. M/s Nizami Wire Industries Vs. FOP, etc
251. Writ Petition No. 1945 of 2012. Ch. Shoukat Abbas Vs. GOP, etc
252. Writ Petition No. 1946 of 2012. Mst. Viqar un Nisa Vs. GOP, etc
253. Writ Petition No. 1947 of 2012. Mian Yaqoob Vs. GOP, etc
254. Writ Petition No. 1948 of 2012. Syed Ali Raza Vs. GOP, etc
255. Writ Petition No. 1949 of 2012. Syed Imtiaz Ali Vs. GOP, etc
256. Writ Petition No. 1950 of 2012. Usman Nawaz Khokar Vs. GOP, etc
257. Writ Petition No. 1951 of 2012. Usman Nawaz Khokar Vs. GOP, etc
258. Writ Petition No. 1952 of 2012. Masood ur Rehman Vs. GOP, etc
259. Writ Petition No. 1953 of 2012. Mushtaq Ali Vs. GOP, etc
260. Writ Petition No. 1954 of 2012. Muhammad Abbas Vs. GOP, etc
261. Writ Petition No. 1955 of 2012. Mian Habib ur Rehman Vs. GOP, etc
262. Writ Petition No. 1956 of 2012. Fareeda Bano Vs. GOP, etc
263. Writ Petition No. 1963 of 2012. Rafique Spinning etc Vs. FOP, etc
264. Writ Petition No. 1964 of 2012. Nishat Mills Vs. FOP, etc
265. Writ Petition No. 1965 of 2012. Thal Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc
266. Writ Petition No. 1967 of 2012. M/s Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc
267. Writ Petition No. 1968 of 2012. M/s Ravi Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
268. Writ Petition No. 1978 of 2012. Sinco Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
269. Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2012. Fuji Cement Co. Vs. Wapda, etc
270. Writ Petition No. 1984 of 2012. M/s Al-Qadir Textile Mills Vs. GOP, etc
271. Writ Petition No. 1985 of 2012. M/s MHA Weaving Mills Vs. FOP, etc
272. Writ Petition No. 1986 of 2012. MAR Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs. GOP, etc
273. Writ Petition No. 1988 of 2012. Sargodha Spinning Mills etc Vs. Wapda, etc
274. Writ Petition No. 1989 of 2012. M/s Ittehad Steel Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
275. Writ Petition No. 1990 of 2012. D.G Khan Cement etc Vs. Wapda, etc
276. Writ Petition No. 1991 of 2012. Ittehad Chemical etc Vs. Wapda, etc
277. Writ Petition No. 1992 of 2012. Fazal Rehman Fabrics etc Vs. Wapda, etc
278. Writ Petition No. 1993 of 2012.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 10 of 67
Neeli Bar Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
279. Writ Petition No. 1994 of 2012. Hussain Mills Ltd Vs. FOP, etc
280. Writ Petition No. 1995 of 2012. Fawad Textile Mills Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc
281. Writ Petition No. 1996 of 2012. Sitara Chemical Industry Vs. Wapda, etc
282. Writ Petition No. 1997 of 2012. Zia ul Qamar Spinning Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc
283. Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2012. New Shalimar Steel etc Vs. FOP, etc
284. Writ Petition No. 2003 of 2012. Shah Jewana Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
285. Writ Petition No. 2004 of 2012. Sunday Textile Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc
286. Writ Petition No. 2007 of 2012. Bilal Weaving Factory Vs. Wapda, etc
287. Writ Petition No. 2008 of 2012. S.M Qadri Sugar Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
288. Writ Petition No. 2011 of 2012. Pakistan CNG Station Vs. FOP, etc
289. Writ Petition No. 2015 of 2012. M/s Pioneer Cement Pvt. Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc
290. Writ Petition No. 2017 of 2012. Fatima Enterprises Vs. Wapda, etc
291. Writ Petition No. 2018 of 2012. Al-Qamar Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc
292. Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2012. M/s Campellpur Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc
293. Writ Petition No. 2021 of 2012. Colony Mills Ltd Vs. FOP, etc
294. Writ Petition No. 2022 of 2012. Sapphire Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
295. Writ Petition No. 2023 of 2012. Reliance Weaving Mills Vs. FOP, etc
296. Writ Petition No. 2032 of 2012. Areeha Pvt. Ltd Vs. FOP, etc
297. Writ Petition No. 2036 of 2012. M/s Al-Rehman Processing etc Vs. Wapda, etc
298. Writ Petition No. 2037 of 2012. M/s Flying Cement Company Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc
299. Writ Petition No. 2039 of 2012. M/s Bhimra Textile Mills Ltd Vs. FOP, etc
300. Writ Petition No. 2040 of 2012. Muhammad Saeed etc Vs. Wapda etc
301. Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2012. M/s Waheed Shahzad Plastic Works Vs. Wapda, etc
302. Writ Petition No. 2045 of 2012. M/s Islamabad Steel Mills Vs. GOP, etc
303. Writ Petition No. 2046 of 2012. Fatima Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc
304. Writ Petition No. 2047 of 2012. Nasir Flour Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc
305. Writ Petition No. 2084 of 2012. M/s Best Chip Board Vs. Wapda, etc
306. Writ Petition No. 2100 of 2012. M/s Nabeel Papers & Board Mills Vs. FOP, etc
307. Writ Petition No. 2159 of 2012. M/s Maqbool & Sons Vs. FOP, etc
308. Writ Petition No. 2230 of 2012. M/s Ali Riasat Steel Vs. FOP, etc
309. Writ Petition No. 2276 of 2012. Fine Gas Co. Vs. FOP, etc
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 11 of 67
310. Writ Petition No. 2281 of 2012. M/s City Textile etc Vs. FOP, etc
311. Writ Petition No. 2285 of 2012. M/s Noor Hussain &Sons etc Vs. FOP, etc
312. Writ Petition No. 2289 of 2012. M/s Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc
313. Writ Petition No. 2290 of 2012. M/s Faisal Spinning Mills Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc
314. Writ Petition No. 2301 of 2012. Ch. Muhammad Shafique etc Vs. Wapda, etc
315. Writ Petition No. 2306 of 2012. M/s MLW Vs. Wapda, etc
316. Writ Petition No. 2307 of 2012. M/s Malik Board & Papers Vs. Wapda, etc
317. Writ Petition No. 2308 of 2012. Waheed Shahzad Plastic Works Vs. Wapda, etc
318. Writ Petition No. 2309 of 2012. M/s Sajid Paper Mills Pvt. Vs. Wapda, etc
319. Writ Petition No. 2310 of 2012. M/s Umer Tissue Mills Vs Wapda, etc
320. Writ Petition No. 2311 of 2012. Pak Mughal Enterprises Vs Wapda, etc
321. Writ Petition No. 2312 of 2012. M/s Kamal Steel Mills Vs Wapda, etc
322. Writ Petition No. 2313 of 2012. Anmol Textile Mills Vs Wapda, etc
323. Writ Petition No. 2314 of 2012. M/s Pak Steel etc Vs Wapda, etc
324. Writ Petition No. 2316 of 2012. Ghouri Tyre & Tube Pvt Vs FOP etc
325. Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2012. M/s MHA Weaving Mills Vs FOP etc
326. Writ Petition No. 2318 of 2012. M/s Fiber Dyeing Vs FOP etc
327. Writ Petition No. 2324 of 2012. M/s Riaz Bottlers Vs Wapda, etc
328. Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2012. HA Fiber Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
329. Writ Petition No. 2327 of 2012. Zia ur Rehman Vs FOP etc
330. Writ Petition No. 2331 of 2012. Qasur Textile Mills Vs FOP etc
331. Writ Petition No. 2332 of 2012. Al-Fateh Industries Vs FOP etc
332. Writ Petition No. 2335 of 2012. M/s Umair Steel Industry Vs Wapda, etc
333. Writ Petition No. 2336 of 2012. M/s Happy Manufacturing Co. Vs Wapda, etc
334. Writ Petition No. 2337 of 2012. M/s Qadria Board Mills Vs Wapda, etc
335. Writ Petition No. 2343 of 2012. M/s Al-Karam Papers Mills Pvt Vs FOP etc
336. Writ Petition No. 2344 of 2012. Muhammad Yousaf Munir Vs FOP etc
337. Writ Petition No. 2345 of 2012. Makkah Steel Mills Vs FOP etc
338. Writ Petition No. 2346 of 2012. M/s Black Diamond Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs FOP etc
339. Writ Petition No. 2347 of 2012. Combine Spinning Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
340. Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2012. Nafeesa Textile Ltd. Etc Vs FOP etc
341. Writ Petition No. 2349 of 2012. Farooq Khalid Pipe Mills Pvt. Ltd etc Vs Wapda etc
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 12 of 67
342. Writ Petition No. 2352 of 2012. Muhammad Rab Nawaz Vs FOP etc
343. Writ Petition No. 2353 of 2012. Royal Steel Mills etc Vs FOP etc
344. Writ Petition No. 2358 of 2012. Shams Textile Mills Ltd Vs FOP etc
345. Writ Petition No. 2366 of 2012. M/s Anmol Paper Mills Vs FOP etc
346. Writ Petition No. 2367 of 2012. ACRO Spinning & Weaving Mills etc Vs FOP etc
347. Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2012. Maahar Fashion Apparels Pvt Vs FOP etc
348. Writ Petition No. 2379 of 2012. SINCO Steel Re-Rolling Vs Wapda etc
349. Writ Petition No. 2416 of 2012. Fuji Cement Co. Ltd Vs Wapda etc
350. Writ Petition No. 2417 of 2012. Standard Textile Mills etc Vs Wapda etc
351. Writ Petition No. 2418 of 2012. M/s Faisal Asad Textile Mills Vs Wapda etc
352. Writ Petition No. 2419 of 2012. M/s Ch. Steel Casting Vs Wapda etc
353. Writ Petition No. 2421 of 2012. M/s Hiadri Beverages Vs Wapda etc
354. Writ Petition No. 2428 of 2012. Gharibwal Cement Vs Wapda etc
355. Writ Petition No. 2430 of 2012. Haleeb Foods Ltd Vs Wapda etc
356. Writ Petition No. 2431 of 2012. Haleeb Foods Ltd Vs Wapda etc
357. Writ Petition No. 2439 of 2012. ACRO Textile Mills Ltd Vs FOP etc
358. Writ Petition No. 2440 of 2012. Nisar Ahmed etc Vs FOP etc
359. Writ Petition No. 2445 of 2012. Al-Khair CNG Vs Wapda etc
360. Writ Petition No. 2446 of 2012. Bismallah Cold Storage Vs FOP etc
361. Writ Petition No. 2447 of 2012. Campbellpur Flour Mills Vs FOP etc
362. Writ Petition No. 2455 of 2012. M/s Mark Industries Pak. Vs GOP etc
363. Writ Petition No. 2465 of 2012. M/s White Pearl Rice Mills Vs FOP etc
364. Writ Petition No. 2468 of 2012. M/s Best chip Board Industries Vs FOP etc
365. Writ Petition No. 2470 of 2012. Aftab Textile Processing etc Vs Wapda etc
366. Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012. M/s Ever Green Rice Mills & 2 others Vs Chairman NEPRA etc
367. Writ Petition No. 2495 of 2012. M/s General Industrial Gases Vs FOP etc
368. Writ Petition No. 2505 of 2012. M/s Sangha CNG Vs Chairman NEPRA etc
369. Writ Petition No. 2506 of 2012. Bismallah Ice Factory Vs Chairman NEPRA etc
370. Writ Petition No. 2507 of 2012. Pir Kabeer Flour Mills Vs Chairman NEPRA etc
371. Writ Petition No. 2508 of 2012. Ch. Muhammad Sidduqe Flour Mills Vs Chairman NEPRA etc
372. Writ Petition No. 2513 of 2012. Fatima Enterprises Vs Wapda etc
373. Writ Petition No. 2539 of 2012. M/s Ahmed Rice etc Vs Chairman NEPRA etc
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 13 of 67
374. Writ Petition No. 2540 of 2012. M/s Rehman Rice Mills etc Vs Chairman NEPRA etc
375. Writ Petition No. 2636 of 2012. Matloob Hussain etc Vs FOP etc
376. Writ Petition No. 2637 of 2012. M/s Textile Mills Ltd Vs Wapda etc
377. Writ Petition No. 2647 of 2012. Asian Food Industries etc Vs FOP etc
378. Writ Petition No. 2648 of 2012. Kohinoor Textile Mills etc Vs FOP etc
379. Writ Petition No. 2649 of 2012. Fawad Textile Mills Vs FOP etc
380. Writ Petition No. 2650 of 2012. Naseem Enterprises etc Vs FOP etc
381. Writ Petition No. 2651 of 2012. Maple Leaf Cement Vs FOP etc
382. Writ Petition No. 2652 of 2012. M/s Qad Cast Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
383. Writ Petition No. 2655 of 2012. M/s Paramount Engineering Works etc Vs FOP etc
384. Writ Petition No. 2662 of 2012. M/s Capital Flour Mills etc Vs NEPRA through its Chairman etc
385. Writ Petition No. 2664 of 2012. AA Cotton Mills etc Vs FOP etc
386. Writ Petition No. 2674 of 2012. M/s M.H.A Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
387. Writ Petition No. 2675 of 2012. M/s Malik Steel Re-Rolling etc Vs FOP etc
388. Writ Petition No. 2676 of 2012. Shams Textile Mills Vs FOP etc
389. Writ Petition No. 2682 of 2012. M/s Ali Riasat Steel Industry Vs FOP etc
390. Writ Petition No. 2683 of 2012. M/s Faisal Spinning Mills Ltd Vs FOP etc
391. Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2012. M/s KSF Plastic Industries Vs FOP etc
392. Writ Petition No. 2696 of 2012. M/s Famous Plastic Industries Vs FOP etc
393. Writ Petition No. 2697 of 2012. M/s Neelum Soap Industries Vs FOP etc
394. Writ Petition No. 2698 of 2012. M/s Mujahid Soap & Chemical Vs FOP etc
395. Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2012. Eastern Steel etc Vs FOP etc
396. Writ Petition No. 2706 of 2012. Golden Textile Mills Vs FOP etc
397. Writ Petition No. 2709 of 2012. M/s Nishat Product Textile Vs FOP etc
398. Writ Petition No. 2715 of 2012. M/s Naeem Industry Vs FOP etc
399. Writ Petition No. 2721 of 2012. M/s Sayid Paper Mills Vs FOP etc
400. Writ Petition No. 2722of 2012. M/s Paradise Spinning Mills Vs FOP etc
401. Writ Petition No. 2728 of 2012. M/s Umer Tissue Mills Vs FOP etc
402. Writ Petition No. 2729 of 2012. M/s MLW Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
403. Writ Petition No. 2730 of 2012. M/s Malik Board & Papers Mills Vs FOP etc
404. Writ Petition No. 2731 of 2012. M/s Qadria Board Mills Vs FOP etc
405. Writ Petition No. 2732 of 2012.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 14 of 67
New Horizan Spinning Mills Vs FOP etc
406. Writ Petition No. 2733 of 2012. Hamza Enterprises etc Vs FOP etc
407. Writ Petition No. 2738 of 2012. Fuji Cement Co. Vs FOP etc
408. Writ Petition No. 2743 of 2012. Sinco Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs FOP etc
409. Writ Petition No. 2745 of 2012. M/s M. Asif Steel Industries Vs FOP etc
410. Writ Petition No. 2746 of 2012. M/s Tariq Steel Mills etc Vs FOP etc
411. Writ Petition No. 2747 of 2012. Terry World Textile Vs FOP etc
412. Writ Petition No. 2748 of 2012. Lahore Polypropylene Industries Vs FOP etc
413. Writ Petition No. 2751 of 2012. Al-Qamar Flour Mills Vs FOP etc
414. Writ Petition No. 2753 of 2012. M/s Muhammadi Papers & Board Industry Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
415. Writ Petition No. 2757 of 2012. Shamim Akhtar etc Vs FOP etc
416. Writ Petition No. 2762 of 2012. M/s Shaheen Paper Vs FOP etc
417. Writ Petition No. 2765 of 2012. M/s Islam Steel Mills etc Vs FOP etc
418. Writ Petition No. 2770 of 2012. M/s TSJ International etc Daska Vs Wapda etc
419. Writ Petition No. 2772 of 2012. M/s Syed Papers Mills Vs Wapda etc
420. Writ Petition No. 2773 of 2012. M/s Umer Tissue Papers Mills Vs Wapda etc
421. Writ Petition No. 2774 of 2012. M/s Malik Board & Papers Industries Vs Wapda etc
422. Writ Petition No. 2775 of 2012. M/s Qadri Baord Mills Vs Wapda etc
423. Writ Petition No. 2777 of 2012. M/s Abdul Ghani Rice Mills Vs FOP etc
424. Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2012. M/s Farooq Ayub Steel Re-Rolling Mills etc Vs Wapda etc
425. Writ Petition No. 2781 of 2012. M/s Haleeb Foods Ltd Vs Wapda etc
426. Writ Petition No. 2784 of 2012. M/s Nasir Solvent Plant Vs Wapda etc
427. Writ Petition No. 2785 of 2012. M/s Bismallah Cold Storage Vs FOP etc
428. Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012. M/s Campbellpur Flour Mills Vs FOP etc
429. Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2012. M/s Garnada Textile Mills Vs FOP etc
430. Writ Petition No. 2788 of 2012. M/s Bilal Fiber Ltd Vs FOP etc
431. Writ Petition No. 2789 of 2012. M/s REDCO Textile Ltd Vs FOP etc
432. Writ Petition No. 2791 of 2012. Kunjah Textile Mills Vs FOP etc
433. Writ Petition No. 2795 of 2012. M/s HAR Textile Mills etc Vs FOP etc
434. Writ Petition No. 2797 of 2012. Gharibwal Cement Ltd Vs Wapda etc
435. Writ Petition No. 2803 of 2012. M/s Al-Madina Packages Vs Govt. of Pak. Through M/o Wapda
436. Writ Petition No. 2804 of 2012. M/s Koni Pex etc Vs Govt. of Pak. Through M/o Wapda
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 15 of 67
437. Writ Petition No. 2805 of 2012 M/s Fazal ur Rehman etc Vs Govt of Pak. Through M/o Wapda
438. Writ Petition No. 2806 of 2012 M/s Ittehad Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
439. Writ Petition No. 2807 of 2012 M/s Ruby Textile Mills Vs FOP etc
440. Writ Petition No. 2808 of 2012 M/s Ahmed Textile Processing Pvt. Ltd etc Vs Wapda etc
441. Writ Petition No. 2814 of 2012 Usman Goraya Spinning Mills Vs FOP etc
442. Writ Petition No. 2816 of 2012 Mehboob Alam Vs Wapda etc
443. Writ Petition No. 2821 of 2012 Iftikhar Ahmed Vs FOP etc
444. Writ Petition No. 2822 of 2012 M/s Fatima Enterprises Ltd Vs FOP etc
445. Writ Petition No. 2830 of 2012 M/s Agha Ghee Printers, Isb. Vs Chairman NEPRA etc
446. Writ Petition No. 2832 of 2012 M/s National Filling Station Vs GOP etc
447. Writ Petition No. 2833 of 2012 M/s Haideri Beverages Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
448. Writ Petition No. 2845 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
449. Writ Petition No. 2846 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
450. Writ Petition No. 2847 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
451. Writ Petition No. 2848 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
452. Writ Petition No. 2849 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
453. Writ Petition No. 2850 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
454. Writ Petition No. 2851 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
455. Writ Petition No. 2852 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc
456. Writ Petition No. 2921 of 2012 Ahmed Glass Industies . Vs Wapda, etc.
457. Writ Petition No. 2944 of 2012 Faisal Spinning Mills etc. Vs FOP etc
458. Writ Petition No. 2960 of 2012 Asia Food Industry Vs FOP etc
459. Writ Petition No. 2962 of 2012 Prosperity Weaving Mills Vs FOP etc
460. Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2012 Naveena Industry Ltd Vs FOP etc
461. Writ Petition No. 2969 of 2012 Lyallpur Textile Vs FOP etc
462. Writ Petition No. 2974 of 2012 M/s Malik Steel Re Rolling Mills Vs FOP etc
463. Writ Petition No. 2986 of 2012 Shams Textile Mills, etc. Vs FOP etc
464. Writ Petition No. 2988 of 2012 M/s Riasat Ali Mills, etc . Ltd Vs FOP etc
465. Writ Petition No. 2989 of 2012 M/s Fast Steel Casting, etc. Vs FOP etc
466. Writ Petition No. 2992 of 2012 M/s Standard Spinning Mills etc. Vs FOP etc
467. Writ Petition No. 2993 of 2012 Sardarpur Textile Mills etc. Vs FOP etc
468. Writ Petition No. 2994 of 2012 M/s Sayid Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs Wapda, etc
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 16 of 67
469. Writ Petition No. 2995 of 2012 M/s MLW Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Wapda, etc.
470. Writ Petition No. 2996 of 2012 M/s Umer Tissue Mills Ltd Vs Wapda, etc.
471. Writ Petition No. 2997 of 2012 M/S Qadria Board Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc.
472. Writ Petition No. 2999 of 2012 Haleeb Food Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.
473. Writ Petition No. 3001 of 2012 Haleeb Foods Mills . Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc.
474. Writ Petition No. 3004 of 2012 Rehmat Steel Vs Wapda, etc.
475. Writ Petition No. 3011 of 2012 Fauji Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc
476. Writ Petition No. 3013 of 2012 M/S Siddique Leather Pvt. Ltd. etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
477. Writ Petition No. 3014 of 2012 Abdul Jabbar, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
478. Writ Petition No. 3016 of 2012 M/S City Steel UAE Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.
479. Writ Petition No. 3020 of 2012 M/S Hafsa Foundary Vs. FOP etc
480. Writ Petition No. 3024 of 2012 Muhammad Younas, etc. Vs FOP etc
481. Writ Petition No. 3028 of 2012 Tata Textile Mills Ltd. etc. Vs FOP etc
482. Writ Petition No. 3030 of 2012 AZGARD NINE Ltd. Vs FOP etc
483. Writ Petition No. 3037 of 2012 M/S MHA Weaving Mills Vs. FOP etc
484. Writ Petition No. 3038 of 2012 Muhammad Siddique Mughal Vs FOP etc
485. Writ Petition No. 3052 of 2012 Abdullah Textile Mills Vs Wapda, etc
486. Writ Petition No. 3067 of 2012 M/S Baba Fareed Steel Vs FOP etc
487. Writ Petition No. 3077 of 2012 Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. Vs FOP etc
488. Writ Petition No. 3097 of 2012 M/S SH Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs GOP etc
489. Writ Petition No. 3099 of 2012 Faisal Spinning Mills Vs FOP etc
490. Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2012 M/S Disposable Utensics Industries Vs Chairman NEPRA, etc.
491. Writ Petition No. 3139 of 2012 Al-Qammar Flour Mills Vs FOP etc
492. Writ Petition No. 3140 of 2012 Bismillah Cold Storage Vs FOP etc
493. Writ Petition No. 3141 of 2012 M/S Cambellpur Flour Mills Vs FOP etc
494. Writ Petition No. 3143 of 2012
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 17 of 67
Masood Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc
495. Writ Petition No. 3150 of 2012 M/S Zahara Textile Mills etc. Vs FOP etc
496. Writ Petition No. 3151 of 2012 Gharibwal cement Ltd. Vs FOP etc
497. Writ Petition No. 3152 of 2012 Fiber Tex Industry Vs FOP etc
498. Writ Petition No. 3153 of 2012 Super Asia Muhammad Din Sons Vs FOP etc
499. Writ Petition No. 3161 of 2012 C.M Food Vs FOP etc
500. Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2012 Shamim Feed Industries Vs FOP etc
501. Writ Petition No. 3163 of 2012 Saweera Flour & General Mills Vs NEPRA, etc
502. Writ Petition No. 3164 of 2012 Shamim Ghee Vs FOP etc
503. Writ Petition No. 3165 of 2012 Shamim Oil Mills Vs FOP etc
504. Writ Petition No. 3192 of 2012 Al-Hamra Fabrics etc. Vs Wapda, etc
505. Writ Petition No. 3195 of 2012 Qaiser Altaf Peracha, etc. Vs FOP etc
506. Writ Petition No. 3196 of 2012 M/s Haidri Beverages Vs. FOP etc
507. Writ Petition No. 3198 of 2012 Blue Star Spinning Mills. Vs. FOP etc
508. Writ Petition No. 3200 of 2012 Ittehad Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP etc
509. Writ Petition No. 3210 of 2012 Lahore Spinning Vs. FOP etc
510. Writ Petition No. 3245 of 2012 M/S Z.N Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP etc
511. Writ Petition No. 3272 of 2012 Excel Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP etc
512. Writ Petition No. 3273 of 2012 Excel Cards Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP etc
513. Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2012 Daud Ahmed Vs. FOP etc
514. Writ Petition No. 3275 of 2012 Computer Valley Vs. FOP etc
515. Writ Petition No. 3301 of 2012 M/S Lafarge Pakistan Cement Co. Vs. FOP etc
516. Writ Petition No. 3337 of 2012 M/S Dewan Farooq Spinning Vs. FOP etc
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 18 of 67
517. Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2012 Ayesha Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP etc
518. Writ Petition No. 3410 of 2012 M/S ATS Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc
519. Writ Petition No. 3418 of 2012 Khokhar Textile Mills. Vs. FOP etc
520. Writ Petition No. 3453 of 2012 Fauji Cement Company Vs. Wapda, etc
521. Writ Petition No. 3469 of 2012 Abdullah Textile Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
522. Writ Petition No. 3478 of 2012 M/S Umer Tissue Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
523. Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2012 M/S MLW Industries Vs. Wapda, etc
524. Writ Petition No. 3480 of 2012 M/S Sayid Paper Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
525. Writ Petition No. 3481 of 2012 Diamond Tyres Ltd. etc. Vs. FOP, etc
526. Writ Petition No. 3482 of 2012 Mian Muhammad Hamza Nizami Vs. FOP, etc
527. Writ Petition No. 3485 of 2012 M/S Lucky Steel Foundry Vs. FOP, etc.
528. Writ Petition No. 3502 of 2012 M/S Barkat Steel Mills. Vs. FOP, etc
529. Writ Petition No. 3506 of 2012 Suraj Textile Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
530. Writ Petition No. 3507 of 2012 Shams Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
531. Writ Petition No. 3515 of 2012 Tanvir Spinning Mills Vs. Wapda, etc
532. Writ Petition No. 3516 of 2012 Unze Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc
533. Writ Petition No. 3526 of 2012 Haleeb Foods Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc
534. Writ Petition No. 3542 of 2012 Shaheen Cotton Mills. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc
535. Writ Petition No. 3545 of 2012 Shehzad Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc
536. Writ Petition No. 3423 of 2012 Unipet Industries Pvt. Ltd. etc. vs. Wapda, etc.
537. Writ Petition No. 3558 of 2012 King Flour Mills Vs. NEPRA, etc.
538. Writ Petition No. 3575 of 2012 M/S Excel Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc
539. Writ Petition No. 3576 of 2012
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 19 of 67
M/S Excel cards Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc
540. Writ Petition No. 3577 of 2012 Famous Textile Mills Ltd. etc. Vs. FOP, etc.
541. Writ Petition No. 3585 of 2012 Service Industries Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc
542. Writ Petition No. 3590 of 2012 Muhammad Sharif, etc. Vs. FOP, etc
543. Writ Petition No. 3591 of 2012 M/S Asmat Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc
544. Writ Petition No. 3597 of 2012 M/S Gunj Bux Gases Co. etc. Vs. FOP, etc.
545. Writ Petition No. 3600 of 2012 Mubeen Maqbool, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc
546. Writ Petition No. 3602 of 2012 Al-Qamar Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc
547. Writ Petition No. 3606 of 2012 M. Asif Steel Industries Vs. FOP, etc
548. Writ Petition No. 3607 of 2012 M/S BM Steel Mills. Vs. FOP, etc.
549. Writ Petition No. 3608 of 2012 Champbellpur Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc
550. Writ Petition No. 3609 of 2012 Bismillah Cold Storage Vs. FOP, etc
Petitioners by: Malik Qamar Afzal, Mian Mehmood Rashid, Mr. Babar Ilyas
Chatha, Mr. Nabeel Rehman, Syed Ishfaq Hussain Naqvi,
Ms. Zainab Effendi, Ms. Rehana Zaman, Rao Hamid
Rehman, Mr. Niazullah Khan Niazi, Ms. Mehraj Tareen, Kh.
Manzoor Ahmed, Mr. Shahzad Rabbani, Barrister Momin
Ali Khan, Mr. Bilal Akbar Tarrar, Mr. Faqir Hussain
Majrooh, Mr. Muhammad Akram Naveed, Mr. A. Salam
Qureshi, Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Mr. Muhammad Siddique
Mughal, Mr. M. Anum Salim, Ms. Mehnaz Shiraz, Ch. M.
Tahir Mehmood, Ch. Muhammad Abdul Latif Gujar, Mr.
Arif Mehmood, Mr. Jawad Mehmood Pasha, Mr. M. Rehan
Sameer, Mr. M. Waseem Chaudhry, Rana Ali Akbar Khan,
Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, Mr. Ghulam Farid Chaudhry, Mr.
Mushtaq Ahmed Kamboh, Mr. Muhammad Rehan Sarwar,
Malik Mumtaz Hussain Khokhar, Mr. Muhammad Siddique
Qazi, Mr. Muhammad Waqas Malik, Mian Muhammad
Hussain Chotiya, Mr. Zulqarnain Hamid, Ch. Mumtaz-ul-
Hassan, Advocates for petitioners in their respective
petitions.
Respondents by:-
Kh. Ahmed Tariq Rahim and Sh. Muhammad Ali, Advocates
for M/O Water & Power, Islamabad.
Mr. Shamshad Ullah Cheema along with Mr. Muhammad
Shafique, Legal Advisor for NEPRA.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 20 of 67
Mr. Munawar-us-Salam and Muhammad Usman Sahi,
Advocate for LESCO.
Syed Kazim Hussain Kazmi along with Muhammad Siddique
Malik, Director Legal (GEPCO) for GEPCO & IESCO.
Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman, Mr. Muhammad Shakeel Abbasi, Mr.
Muhammad Asif Khan and Mr. Saeed Raza, Advocates for
IESCO.
Rana Asif Saeed, Advocate on behalf of MEPCO, GEPCO,
NTDC & FESCO.
Mr. Asad Jan, Advocate along with Mr. Shakeel, AD Legal
for PESCO.
Mr. Noman Munir Peracha, Advocate for HESCO.
Mr. Muhammad Khalid Zaman, Advocate and Mr. Kamran
Amjad Advocate for FESCO.
Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi, Advocate for MEPCO.
Dates of hearing: 08-10-2012, 15-10-2012 & 22-10-2012.
SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI; J: The bulk of writ petitions,
consisting of 550 in total, challenging the levy and
demand of “Fuel Adjustment Charges”, were allowed by
this court by means of a short order dated 24.10.2012,
which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
“For the reasons, to be recorded later on, all above
captioned writ petitions are allowed through instant
single order, to the following effect:
(i) It is declared that Regulatory Authority is
under statutory obligation to protect the
interest of consumer as well, instead of
allowing the distributors to raise demand
of FAC in a mechanical fashion. The
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan does not permit exploitation of
any kind or form, therefore, it casts duty
upon the High Court to protect any
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 21 of 67
person from being exploited and to provide
shield to the Socio Economic fiber of the
country, from being disrupted at the hands
of executive functionaries. The
consumer/citizens cannot be left at the
mercy of bodies at advantageous position,
as arbitrary exercise of authority, malafide
actions and illegal demands have always
been checked by the superior Courts.
(ii) Levy and demand of Fuel Adjustment
Charges as arrears with retrospective effect
is declared as unconstitutional, besides the law
applicable, principles of natural justice and
dictums laid down by the superior courts of the
country.
(iii) The scope of levy/demand of Fuel
Adjustment Charges cannot be expanded and
has to remain within the variations in the prices
of fuel.
(iv) The distributors of electricity are directed
to issue amended bills and in case consumers
had already paid the bills, excessive amount
received be adjusted accordingly, which has to
be reflected in the bills of coming month. All
persons/consumers whether before this Court,
or not, must be treated equally.”
2. The reasons for the above reproduced short
order are as follows.
3. In all the writ petitions captioned above, the
petitioners, who are consumers of electricity in the
country, have attacked the legality of the levy and
demand of Fuel Adjustment Surcharge from them
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 22 of 67
by the distribution companies allowed by the
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, herein
after referred to as NEPRA.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners argued the case at great length. The crux
of their arguments is given in the following
passages.
5. Malik Qamar Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court
made a comprehensive reference to the NEPRA’s
powers, structure and historical back ground. His
arguments are:
• Executive order/notification which is
detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of a
person cannot operate retrospective. However
a beneficial executive order/notification can be
given retrospective effect. He has placed
reliance upon 2005 SCMR 492, PLD 1997 SC
1027.
• Fiscal liability is to be construed strictly and
no fiscal liability can be imposed on past and
closed transaction, PLD 2011 Karachi 437,
2011 PTD 1460, 2009 PTD 722.
• Every fiscal statute contains three distinct
categories i.e., charging, collection and
assessment provisions. Charging provisions
have to be construed strictly and any benefit
found therein has to be given to the tax payer.
(2010 PTD 635, 2009 PTD 1473)
• There exists a glaring gap between the month
for which FPA is determined and demand of
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 23 of 67
same through bills. The submissions made in
this regard may be illustrated in the form of
chart as follows:
SRO No & Determination date
Date of Notification
Billing Month implementing the Notification
Corresponding month
Difference
202(1)/2012 dated 28.02.2012
29.02.2012 March, 2012 August, 2011 7 Months
374(1)/2012 dated 17.04.2012
17.04.2012 May, 2012 Sept. 2011 7 Months
447(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012
03.05.2012 June, 2012 Oct. 2011 8 Months
448(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012
03.05.2012 July, 2012 November, 2011
8 Months
449(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012
03.05.2012 July, 2012 December, 2011
7 Months
450(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012
03.05.2012 August, 2012 January, 2012 7 Months
523(1)/2012 dated 18.05.2012
22.05.2012 September,2012 February, 2012 6 Months
524(1)/2012 dated 18.05.2012
22.05.2012 October, 2012 March, 2012 6 Months
• In order to explain the proposition involved in
the instant case the learned counsel has given
a brief comparison of NEPRA with Regulatory
Commission of Alaska, USA. In this account he
has placed on record a judgment rendered by
Supreme Court of Alaska in case of
“Matanuska Electric Association Inc. Vs.
Chugach Electric Association Inc.”, wherein it
has been held that Retroactive Rate making is
prohibited in Alaska as it is in the majority of
jurisdiction in US. The Supreme Court
reversed the Commission’s order while
concluding that commission’s order
constituted retroactive rate making.
• Fundamental rule of rate making is that rates
are exclusively prospective in nature.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 24 of 67
6. Muhammad Anum Saleem Advocate, while
putting appearance on behalf of the petitioners,
argued at length about the fundamental rights at
stake in the matter; the power, scope and
jurisdiction of the superior courts to review the
executive/administrative actions; and issues
pertaining to rule of law, democratic norms, good
governance and equal treatment in context of the lis
in hand. He made the following submissions:
• While referring to a number of celebrated
judgments of the court of apex as well as from
Indian Jurisdiction, the learned counsel
maintained that Article 9 of the Constitution
has been interpreted and its scope has been
enlarged to each and every aspect of human
life. Therefore, whenever a policy is framed,
with reference to uplifting the socio-economic
conditions of the citizens, object should be to
ensure enforcement of their fundamental
rights. Relied upon 2012 SCMR 773; PLD 2010
SC 1109; PLD 2010 SC 759; PLD 2011 SC
619; PLD 1994 SC 693
• Right to live guaranteed in any civilized society
implies the right to shelter and while
discussing the right to shelter the superior
courts have held that the same includes the
electricity being an essential service to the
shelter for the human beings. He has referred
to AIR 1996 SC 90; 1995 INDLAW SC 1358;
2007 INDLAW CAL 133; PLD 2009 SC 644
• Every executive or administrative action of the
state or other statutory or public body is open
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 25 of 67
to judicial scrutiny and High Courts and
Supreme Court, in exercise of the power of
judicial review under the Constitution, can
quash the executive action or decision which is
violative of fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution.
• Judicial review is designed to prevent the
cases of abuse of power and neglect of duty by
public authority, and the superior courts of
the country under the constitutional
jurisdiction are conferred with wide powers to
reach injustice where ever it is found. In
this regard he has made reference to PLD 2012
SC 292; PLD 2011 SC 963; PLD 2011 SC 997;
2012 SCMR 06; PLD 2011 SC 407; PLD 1967
SC 569; 2010 INDLAW DEL 928.
• Public functions need not be the exclusive
domain of the State and several corporations
and companies have also been formed to
perform public functions and to achieve some
collective benefit for the public or a section of
public, then a writ of mandamus lie in such
matters against such corporations and
companies.
• The superior court’s power of judicial review of
administrative and executive decisions is
squarely, adequately and widely available on
the grounds of illegality, irrationality and
procedural impropriety.
• While referring to Arts.18, 15, 24 of the
constitution submit that in fact the impugned
proviso and consequent levy of surcharge
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 26 of 67
tantamount to prohibit and prevent the
business and trade in the country. Reasonable
restriction does not, at all mean deprivation of
citizens from fundamental rights.
• Impugned proviso as well as levy and demand
of Fuel Adjustment Surcharge do not stand the
test of due process as well as fundamental
rights as envisaged under Arts. 4, 9, 14 and
25.
• The respondent’s acts are also against the very
concepts of good governance, rule of law,
which are recipe for corruption,
mismanagement, nepotism, jobbery besides
being illegal, ultra-vires to the constitutional
commands and discriminatory as well.
• NEPRA order(s) does not contain within itself
the essential requirement of rule of law. It is
clear besides the mandate of express
provisions of section 31(2) of the Act. It also
amounts to arbitrary, unreasonable and
confiscatory exercise of power.
• Fundamental rights in the constitution are to
be read and interpreted by the superior courts
in expansive, dynamic and flexible manner.
Articles of Universal Declaration of Human
Rights have also been taken in consideration
by the superior courts of the country while
interpreting the fundamental rights as
guaranteed in our own Constitution. PLD 2011
SC 407; 2012 SCMR 06, PLD 2012 SC 292;
PLD 1993 SC 341; PLD 2011 LAHORE 120;
1999 SCMR 1379
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 27 of 67
7. Mian Mehmood Rashid, Advocate Supreme
Court, while putting his appearance submitted as
follows:
• The proviso to section 31(4) of the NEPRA Act,
1997, amended on 29.09.2011, is ultra vires
the constitution and the vires of NEPRA Act,
1997. The learned counsel emphasized that
the proviso was ultra vires to the constitution
and law even before the amendment, what to
talk of its absurdity after the amendment.
• While dilating upon the issue of retrospective
charge the learned counsel stated that almost
all the determinations and notifications are
delayed for about five to seven months at least.
The difference pointed out by the learned
counsel is as follows:
Determination date
Date of Notification
Billing Month implement-ting the Notifications
Corresponding month
Difference
15.06.2011 23.08.2011 April, 2011 September, 2011
5 Months
19.07.2011 23.08.2011 May, 2011 September, 2011
4 Months
12.08.2011 29.09.2011 June, 2011 October, 2011 5 Months
03.10.2011 01.11.2011 July, 2011 November, 2011
5 Months
• In this back drop, the learned counsel
emphasized that the Fuel Adjustment
Surcharge for the month of April was made
after a lapse of 170 days, and for the month of
May, June and July, 2011 was made after s
lapse of 140 days each.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 28 of 67
• The recovery of Fuel Adjustment Charges is
obviously back dated; retrospective in nature,
levied in a situation when the crucial months
had already been closed and paid for, thus
became a past and closed transaction.
• All the electricity companies, acting under the
blessings of the government, operate in a
monopolistic manner, whereas the petitioners
are the commercial entrepreneurs who are
acting in competitive commercial markets. The
manner, the authority is being exercised, the
electricity companies have been ensured that
they are not only made entitled to recover their
entire input costs, but also the profit in every
situation, while on the other hand, the
consumers must have to suffer the loss in
each and every circumstance, that too, by
retrospective imposition of FAS.
• The impugned law is causing perpetual loss to
the consumers by imposing fuel adjustment
surcharge in a retrospective manner, which is
in violation to their fundamental rights.
• The concept of predictability of the tariff which
is a universally accepted and required criterion
for the determination of tariff, has been
blatantly violated, ignored and destroyed.
• While narrating the history tariff
determination, the learned counsel maintained
that earlier on the tariff was determined and
notified on the yearly basis, which took care of
the preceding year’s differentia in a prospective
manner, thereafter, in the year 2006-07, bi-
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 29 of 67
annual fuel adjustment method was devised by
the NEPRA, which was also prospective in
nature. Then, the exercise was made on
quarterly basis but always in a prospective
manner. The learned counsel stressed that this
process gave a fair opportunity to the
electricity distributing companies to recover
their cost at one hand while on the other hand
gave an equal margin to the commercial
consumers to pass on the costs in their
production, manufacturing and sale of goods,
but through the introduction of impugned
proviso the whole scheme has been changed
and consumers’ rights have been usurped.
• The proviso is punitive, arbitrary,
expropriatory, confiscatory, vague, overboard,
unreasonable and violative of the fundamental
rights to carry on business or to hold
properties.
• It invites uncertainty and takes away the
concept of predictability of tariff, which is
cardinal principle of NEPRA Act. In this regard
the learned counsel referred Guidelines under
Rule-16 of the tariff standards and Procedure
Rules, 1998.
• A colorable piece of legislation, which not only
invites discrimination between the licensees
and consumers in general but also a direct
and personal burden on the industrial
consumers of electricity, which burden they
can neither pass on to their customers nor
include into the cost of production.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 30 of 67
• Determinations and notifications are illegal
due to the reason that NEPRA before passing
the notification was required to follow the
guidelines/directions issued in judgments
rendered by the honorable High Court in case
of ICC Textiles Limited Vs. WAPDA etc,
reported as 2009 CLC 1343 and by the court
of apex in Watan Party’s case reported as PLD
2011 SC 997. He maintained that NEPRA also
ignored the Hagler & Bailley Audit Report, and
instead of taking remedial measures at its own
end, it threw the entire burden on consumers
by levying exaggerated, unjustified and illegal
cost.
• Lastly, even otherwise, notifications for the
months of June and July, 2011 being issued
by the Federal Government are without lawful
authority, as by then the power to issue
notification was lied with NEPRA and not with
the Federal Government.
• In support of his arguments he has referred to
2012 SCMR 06; 2001 CLC 848; AIR 1967 MP
268; AIR 1961 SC 552; PLD 1993 SC 176;
2004 PTD 2267; PLD 2005 SC 193; PLD 1957
SC 09; PLD 2005 SC 873; PLD 2011 LAH 120;
2009 SCMR 187; PLD 2011 SC 44; 2011 PLC
(C.S) 7; 1991 CLC 13; 2002 SCMR 312; I998
SCMR 2268; 2007 SCMR 1835; PLD 1966 SC
628; 1997 SCMR 503; 1988 SCMR 715; 1993
SCMR 1905; PLD 2011 SC 997; 2009 CLC
1343.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 31 of 67
8. Muhammad Siddique Mughal, Advocate
Supreme Court, while appearing in 13 writ
petitions, by referring a plethora of case law from
numerous jurisdictions raised the following points:
• The principle against the retrospective
operation of the statutes is applicable with
more force in the case of fiscal statutes. Fiscal
legislation imposing liability is generally
subject to normal presumption that it is not
retrospective, reliance has been place upon
AIR 1954 SC 158.
• If monetary benefits accrued on account of the
retrospective operation has to be denied to the
beneficiaries, by the same token, monetary
benefits also enjoyed by the person adversely
affected by such retrospective operation should
not be taken away.
• It is well settled principle of law that the
doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the
State. It is also not in dispute that all
administrative orders ordinarily are to be
considered prospective in nature. The effect of
withdrawal of the relief with retrospective
operation will be to impose on the assessee a
huge accumulated financial burden for not
fault of the assessee and this is bound to
create serious financial problems for the
assessee. The respondent could not have
revised its price from a back date and
recovered it from innumerable customers to
whom its finished products were supplied at a
fixed price. The Government is competent to
resile from a promise even if no one is put in
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 32 of 67
any adverse situation which cannot be
rectified. The law does not authorize the State
to issue a direction with retrospective effect.
The authority therefore could only give
prospective effect to such directions.
• Even otherwise, it is consistently followed law
that what is directly forbidden cannot be
achieved indirectly and also that when a thing
is to be done in a particular manner it must be
done in that way and not otherwise, but the
impugned determinations and notifications
with regard to imposition of Fuel Adjustment
Surcharge are violative of these golden
principles of law. The learned counsel relied
upon 2010 SCMR 1437, PLD 1971 SC 61,
2005 PLC 634, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
• The consumers were not served with any
notice; however, the same could have easily
been served through monthly electricity bill.
Moreover, no written objections or comments
were ever called upon from the consumers
regarding the proposed adjustments, which is
violative of the principles of natural justice.
9. On the other hand, while vehemently refuting
the arguments advanced from petitioners’ side,
learned counsels for respondents Kh. Ahmed Tariq
Rahim and Sh. Muhammad Ali, Advocates for M/O
Water & Power, Islamabad. Mr. Shamshad Ullah
Cheema along with Mr. Muhammad Shafique, Legal
Advisor for NEPRA. Mr. Munawar-us-Salam and
Muhammad Usman Sahi, Advocate for LESCO.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 33 of 67
Syed Kazim Hussain Kazmi along with Muhammad
Siddique Malik, Director Legal (GEPCO) for GEPCO
& IESCO. Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman, Mr. Muhammad
Shakeel Abbasi, Mr. Muhammad Asif Khan and Mr.
Saeed Raza, Advocates for IESCO. Rana Asif Saeed,
Advocate on behalf of MEPCO, GEPCO, NTDC &
FESCO. Mr. Asad Jan, Advocate along with Mr.
Shakeel, AD Legal for PESCO. Mr. Noman Munir
Peracha, Advocate for HESCO. Mr. Muhammad
Khalid Zaman, Advocate for FESCO contested the
petition and took the stance of non-maintainability
of writ petition by raising preliminary objections,
which are as follows:
• No Board Resolutions conferring authority
upon the petitioners have been attached with
the petitions.
• Alternate remedies were available to Petitioner
under the 1998 Rules.
- Rule 3: File a petition for
adjustment/revision of Tariff.
- Rule 16(6): File a review petition before
NEPRA.
- In the presence of alternate remedies,
constitutional petitions are not maintainable.
Petitioners did not seek the remedy available to
them, hence cannot assail the same under
constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed
on PLD 1997 Lah 546, 2008 SCMR 308 and
2007 CLD 530.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 34 of 67
• The earlier mechanism for fuel price
adjustment was challenged, on the same
grounds and principles, before this Court, and
the same has been adjudicated upon. The
judgment is cited as 2010 YLR 2872.
• The determinations of NEPRA, and the modus
operandi of fuel price adjustment, were upheld
by this Court in 2010 YLR 2872; therefore,
instant petitions are hit by the principle of res-
judicata as well.
• The monthly price adjustment mechanism has
been in field since 2008. The same have been
paid by consumers. Furthermore, mechanism
for 2010-2011 was finalized as far back as 09-
12-2010. No objections were raised. Public
notice was given before finalizing tariff, as well
as before finalizing adjustment for specific
months; therefore, Petitioners are now
estopped from impugning the mechanism
which was finalized as far back as 09-12-2010.
Reliance was placed upon PLD 2004 Lahore
404.
• The questions in the petitions involve
determination of facts and call for detailed
factual inquiry relating to tariff determination
which is beyond the scope of the constitutional
jurisdiction of this Court.
• On merits they asserted that the bills did not
become a past and closed transaction.
Financial liability does not become past and
closed transaction. While referring to 1988
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 35 of 67
SCMR 715, PLD 1970 SC 514, 2003 CLD
1299, PLD 2003 Kar. 174, PLD 2004 SC 25he
maintained that the concept of ‘past and
closed transaction’ is based on the
interpretation that the transactions
contemplated had attained finality. Finality
was not attained in the present case.
Mechanism for adjustment was finalized as far
back as 09-12-2010. It involved adjustment of
fuel price variation on a monthly basis, which
is also warranted under the NEPRA Act.
Finality is only attained once the adjustments
have been made.
• The notifications were issued in consequence
of the Tariff Determination of NEPRA. The
same was never objected to. Such a
notification cannot be retrospective, as the fuel
price variation can only be concluded after the
month has passed. Reliance is placed on 2010
YLR 2872.
• No vested right accrued in favor of the
petitioners. The Petitioners were aware, or
should have been aware, of the fuel price
adjustment mechanism. The mechanism has
been used for previous years as well, from
2008 onwards. Reliance is placed on 1992
SCMR 2430 page 2433, 2010 YLR 2872, 2010
SCMR 517.
• All actions are transparent, and open to the
public. The determinations are made in light of
the facts and figures provided by the relevant
bodies. Hence, there is no discrimination.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 36 of 67
• Due process of law has been followed. Section
31(4) gives NEPRA the power to determine
tariffs. Under this power, NEPRA gave its Tariff
Determination dated 09-12-2010. The fuel
price adjustment mechanism was contained
therein. As per the proviso to section 31(4),
NEPRA had to revise tariff on account of fuel
price variation. This is what was done after
proper public notice and due
process.Furthermore, there was no delay.
Notices for hearing were published on a
monthly basis, and tariff was revised after
deliberations on the content placed before
NEPRA. Even otherwise, no penal
consequences provided hence the provision not
mandatory, but directory. Reliance was placed
upon PLD 1974 SC 13, 2000 SCMR 1305.
• Electricity falls under the Federal Legislative
List, and the Federal Government has the
power to pass legislation for matters related to
electricity. Therefore, the NEPRA Act and the
powers granted thereunder are valid law.
• The contention of the Petitioner that
amendment to section 31(4) and its proviso to
provide for monthly revision goes against the
principle of NEPRA Act to protect consumers
from monopolistic and oligopolistic prices, and
is ultra vires Article 18, it is contended that
there is no promotion of monopolistic
practices. In fact, revision of prices ensures
uniformity and accountability of pricing
structures. On the basis of the above
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 37 of 67
mentioned arguments learned counsel prayed
for the dismissal of the writ petitions.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and through their able assistance gone
through the statutory and precedent law.For better
understanding of the controversy raised in these
petitions, it would be quite relevant and
advantageous to give a brief history and hierarchy of
NEPRA. In 1992, the Government approved
WAPDAs Strategic Plan for Privatization of the
Pakistan Power Sector. A critical element of
strategic plan was the creation and establishment of
a regulatory authority to oversee the restructuring
process and to regulate monopolistic services. On
December 16, 1997, issue of the gazette of Pakistan
proclaimed the enactment of the Regulation of
Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997, which had become
effective on 13 December 1997, National Electric
Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) has been
created to introduce transparent and judicious
economic regulation, based on sound commercial
principles, to the electric power sector of Pakistan.
NEPRA’s main responsibilities are to:
• Issue Licenses for generation, transmission
and distribution of electric power;
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 38 of 67
• Establish and enforce standards to ensure
quality and safety of operations and supply of
electric power to consumers;
• Determine tariffs for generation, transmission
and distribution of electric power
NEPRA is responsible for issuing licenses for
distribution of electric power under section 21 of the
Regulations of Generation, Transmission and
Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997. There are
five broad categories that consist of numerous
licensees. A brief illustration is envisaged here in
below:-
i) EX-WAPDA Distribution Companies
(DISCOs)- includes Islamabad Electric Supply
Company (IESCO), Peshawar Electric Supply
Company (PESCO), Lahore Electric Supply
Company (LESCO), etc.
ii) Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESCO)
iii) GENCOs-Thermal- Jamshoro Power Company
Limited (JPCL), GENCO-I, Central Power
Generation Company (CPGCL), GENCO-II,
Northern Power Generation Company Limited
(NPGCL), GENCO-III
iv) Independent Power Procedures (IPPs)-
NishatPower Limited, DHA Cogen Limited,
Attock Gen Limited, Sapphire Electric
Company Limited, etc.
v) Small Power Procedures (SPPs)- ICI Pakistan
Power Gen Ltd, Crescent Power Tech Ltd,
Kohinoor Power Company Ltd, Ibrahim Fibers
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 39 of 67
Ltd, Sitara Energy Ltd, Mehmood Textiles Mills
Ltd, etc.
The following chart describes the hierarchy of
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority:-
Federal Government
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA)
Karachi Electric GENCO- IPPs SPPs
Supply Company Thermal (Independent (Small Power
Power Producers) Producers) WAPDA issues licenses
to Ex-WAPDA
Distribution Companies
QESCO PESCO IESCO LESCO
(Quetta)(Peshawar) (Islamabad) (Lahore)
Industrial and Residential Consumers
11. Before dilating upon the other issues, I deem it
appropriate to take up the issue of the maintainability of
the writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution.
In this regard the judgment of the honorable Supreme
Court of Pakistan passed in the case of Muhammad
Yasin versus Federation of Pakistan, reported as PLD
2012 SC 132, wherein appointment of Mr. Touqeer Sadiq
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 40 of 67
as Chairman of the regulatory authority i.e OGRA was set
aside, has served as a lightship for me. The honorable
Supreme Court has elaborately set forth certain
guidelines for the high courts in terms of Article-189 of
the Constitution which are fully attracted in the instant
case. The honorable Supreme Court held as follows:
“At the end of this part of our opinion, we can now summarize our three-step rationale for maintaining the present petition. Firstly, when understood correctly, a number of Articles of the Constitution make it clear that it is not silent about the economic life of the nation and the concomitant fundamental rights of its citizens; secondly, we are clear that there is an ever-greater nexus between the proper and independent functioning of the regulatory bodies and economic life of the nation and its citizens and that this nexus is fully recognized by the Legislature in its use of language employed by the Ordinance in the provisions referred to above; and finally, there can be no doubt that regulatory bodies can function competently and independently only once their autonomy is ensured through enforcement of the legal checks upon appointments to important positions therein. When these three points are fully appreciated, it becomes clear that the validity of the process of appointment of the Chairman, OGRA is indeed a matter of public importance which has a direct linkage with the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan, and thus warrants the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 184 (3) supra. It is possible, however, that if similar cases arise in future, the High Courts may be in a position to decide the same by applying the principles of law enunciated in this judgment, in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution.”
In paras-13 & 14 of the verdict (supra) the honorable
Supreme Court while elaborating the fundamental rights
of the citizens in connection with the functions and
powers of the regulatory authorities, has held:
“When we see the Constitution in this manner, we are brought to the unavoidable conclusion that it is a part of
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 41 of 67
the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan that they be governed by a State which provides effective safeguards for their economic well-being; a State which protects inter alia, the belongings and assets of the State and its citizens from waste and malversation. Contrary to what some commentators seem to believe, our Constitution is not silent on issues, which affect the economic life of the nation and its citizens. It contains a whole range of Articles which have a direct nexus with good economic governance and fundamental rights. At the very beginning in Article 3 there is, for instance, an oft-forgotten but eloquently stated directive “The State shall ensure that elimination of all forms of exploitation and the gradual fulfillment of the fundamental principle, from each according to his ability to each according to his work”. Then there is Article 4, which guarantees the protection of law, not just for life and liberty, but also for the body and property of citizens. Furthermore, there is a whole range of fundamental rights, such as the right to life (Article 9), the universal and non-derogable right to a life of dignity (Article-14), the right to engage in business (Article 25) which has clear economic ramifications. When these articles are read together, we cannot escape the conclusion that the Constitution envisages a political dispensation where good economic governance is a right of the people of Pakistan which they cannot be deprived of. Articles, Justice Fazal Karim a former Judge of this Court and the nation’s leading legal academic and author, concludes with a telling comment from which we seek guidance: “In short, Article 18 and the rights guaranteed by it are concerned with the economic life of the nation and its citizens.” (emphasis supplied) p. 718. The direct nexus between the appointment of Chairman, OGRA and the other fundamental rights enumerated above can now be elaborated as the Second step of our reasoning.
14. It needs to be understood that in our present context, the economic life of the nation and its citizens, is inextricably linked with the proper functioning of regulatory bodies such as OGRA. To fully appreciate this, we may take stock of some recent developments, which have deepened the connection between the proper ‘effective and efficient’ functioning of regulatory bodies and the fundamental rights of citizens. In the past, particularly during the 1970’s, direct State ownership and management of business enterprises was a policy objective of the Government. More recently, however, such State involvement has receded through privatization
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 42 of 67
of many State owned enterprises and through entrustment of activities (which hitherto were undertaken by the State) to companies initially owned by the State but slated for disinvestment through privatization. The most relevant example of this, in the context of the present case is the creation of the Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd. It has been incorporated under the Companies ordinance, 1984 pursuant to the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Re-organization) Ordinance 2001. In view of this increasing trend towards privatization, regulation has emerged as perhaps the single most important function of the State in the sphere of macro-economics.
I find it appropriate to borrow the words of wisdom from
Honorable Supreme Court, on the powers of superior
courts on the judicial review.A Larger Bench of the
honorable Supreme Court in 2011 PLC (CS) 1076 (Hajj
Corruption case) held that:
“20. The judiciary including the High Courts and the Supreme Court is bound to protect and preserve the Constitution as well as to enforce fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution either individually or collectively, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it either under Article 199 or 184(3) of the Constitution. We are fully cognizant of our jurisdiction; it is one of the functions of the judicial functionaries to decide the matters strictly in accordance with the Constitution and law. We are conscious of our jurisdiction, and exercise the same with judicial restraint. But such restraint cannot be exercised at the cost of rights of the citizens to deny justice to them.
The scheme of the constitution makes it obligatory on the part of superior Courts to interpret constitution, law and enforce fundamental rights. There is no cavil with the proposition that ultimate arbiter is the Court which is the custodian of the Constitution, as it has been noted herein before and without repeating the same, this Court had initiated proceedings in the instant case as is evident from the detailed facts and circumstances noted hereinabove to ensure that corruption and corrupt practices by which the Hujjaj were looted and robed has brought bad name to the country.
23. This Court is of the considered view that a democratic system must prevail in the Country which aspect has been highlighted in the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association’s Case (PLD 2009 SC 879) wherein all the actions of the military dictator were declared unconstitutional besides the elections held in February, 2008 was also under threat of being declared illegal were validated to promote will of the electorate. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, who was not recognized as lawful Chief
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 43 of 67
Justice but the oath he administered to the President of Pakistan was declared valid by this Court in order to save the system by holding inter alia as under: -
191. This Court hopes that all institutions, on the well known principles of good governance, and without transgressing their constitutional bounds, will endeavor to eradicate corruption and self enrichment, and will devote themselves to the service of the people. Needless to add that the Courts will, at all times, remain vigilant in this behalf and will always come to the rescue of any beleaguered citizen or class of citizens whenever and wherever an occasion ‘arises’.”
As this proposition has been exhaustively discussed,
comprehensively elaborated and thoroughly settled in a
variety of cases. It would be advantageous to reproduce
following passages from a recent judgment of the
honorable Supreme Court i.e. Watan Party V. Federation
of Pakistan, PLD 2012 SC 292 [Memogate case]:
Indisputably, if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed; could come to or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters the Court would be justified in interfering with the same. [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahindra (AIR 1984 SC 1182)]. The exercise of constitutional powers by the High Court and the Supreme Court is categorized as power of judicial review. Every executive or administrative action of the State or other statutory or public bodies is open to judicial scrutiny and the High Court or the Supreme Court can, in exercise of the power of judicial review under the Constitution, quash the executive action or decision which is contrary to law or is violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. With the expanding horizon of Articles dealing with Fundamental Rights, every executive action of the Government or other public bodies, if arbitrary, unreasonable or contrary to law, is now amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Superior Courts and can be validly scrutinized on the touchstone of the Constitutional mandates. [Common Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of India (AIR 1999 SC 2979)]. In the case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India [AIR 1992 SC 248 = 1991 SCR (1) Supl. 251], the Court while taking up the issues of healthcare and compensation to the victims, supervised the distribution of the money among the victims of Bhopal gas tragedy and monitored the hospitals set up to treat the victims.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 44 of 67
9. Superior Court's supervisory jurisdiction of judicial review is invoked by an aggrieved party in myriad cases. High Courts in India are empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise judicial review to correct administrative decisions and under this jurisdiction High Court can issue to any person or authority, any direction or order or writs for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. The jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is very wide. However, it is an accepted principle that this is a public law remedy and it is available against a body or person performing public law function. Before considering the scope and ambit of public law remedy in the light of certain English decisions, it is worthwhile to remember the words of Subha Rao J. expressed in relation to the powers conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in Dwarkanath vs. Income Tax Officer 1965 Indlaw SC 125 at pages 540-41:
"This article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression "nature", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Court to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with the unitary form of Government into a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself..."
Similarly in case of Munir Hussain Bhatti V. Sindh High
Court Bar Association, PLD 2011 SC 407, the honorable
Supreme Court held:
65. A classical analysis of the grounds on which
administrative decisions are subjected to judicial review was
presented in an English case, Council of Civil Service Union v.
Minister, by Lord Diplock. This analysis has also been
frequently adverted to in our jurisprudence on the judicial
review of executive action. A recent instance can be found in
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 45 of 67
the opinion of Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J. in the case of the Chief
Justice of Pakistan, supra at pages 232 to 238. The analysis
in the case of the Civil Service Union supra is equally
applicable to the circumstances of these petitions. Lord
Diplock stated three grounds for exercise of the Court’s power
of judicial review. These are ‘illegality’, ‘irrationality’ and
‘procedural impropriety.’ Council of Civil Service Union v.
Minister ([1984] 3 All ER 935, 950-952).What is important for
deciding the present petitions is the scope and nature of
‘illegality’, which, in the language of the aforesaid case, is
measured on the consideration “… that the decision-maker
must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-
making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or
not is par-excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in
the event of dispute, by those persons - the Judges by whom
judicial power of the State is exercisable” (ibid). Thus any
decision based on an incorrect understanding of the law that
regulates the decision-maker’s decision-making power, would
be an illegal decision, and it could be corrected through
judicial review. What must be emphasized here is that in
disputed cases, it is for the Courts to definitively interpret the
law and thereafter to test the administrative decision on the
touchstone of the law so interpreted.
In the case of Watan Party and another Vs. Federation of
Pakistan (Law and Order in Karachi) PLD 2011 SC 997, it
has been held:
“2. This aspect of the Islamic teachings, as well finds its
reflection in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan 1973. The Constitution, in its very Preamble,
postulates that the principles of democracy, freedom, equality,
tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be
fully observed and the fundamental rights, including equality
of status, of opportunity and before the law, social, economic
and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression,
belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and
public morality; shall be fully guaranteed. These very
principles have been made a substantive part of the
Constitution under Article 2A. Thus, it is the duty of the State
to protect and safeguard all these Fundamental Rights
including the right to life and liberty as envisaged by Article 9
of the Constitution, which has been interpreted by this Court
in Shehla Zia’s case (PLD 1994 SC 693) as under: -
“Article 9 of the Constitution provides that no person
shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance
with law. The word "life" is very significant as it covers
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 46 of 67
all facts of human existence. The word "life" has not
been defined in the Constitution but it does not mean
nor can it be restricted only to the vegetative or animal
life or mere existence from conception to death. Life
includes all such amenities and facilities which a
person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with
dignity, legally and constitutionally.
The instances are not few when the Honorable Supreme
Court of Pakistan has held that the right to life includes
the right to live with human dignity and termed it a
fundamental right as mandated under the Constitution of
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, more particularly
Articles 9 and 10 thereof. In a recent case of Alleged
Corruption in Rental Power Plants etc., reported as 2012
SCMR 773, the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan
has held:
“The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan mandates that State shall exercise its
powers and authority through chosen
representatives of the people. A democratic order
in place, through the representatives of people,
being the members of Parliament, obligates the
elected representatives to fulfill their
commitments bestowed upon them under the
Constitution, and in their representative capacity,
they are bound to perform their functions
honestly, to the best of their ability, faithfully, in
accordance with the Constitution and the law as
well as the Rules of the Assembly, and always in
the interest of sovereignty, integrity, solidarity,
well being and prosperity of Pakistan. Such a
binding force of the Constitution commands them
to ensure well being and prosperity of Pakistan,
so whenever they feel threat to the well being of
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 47 of 67
the people of Pakistan for any reason, they are
bound to preserve the same.”
“It is to be clarified that the Government of the
day under Article 29 read with Article 2A of the
Constitution is bound to formulate policies for the
promotion of social and economic well being of the
people, which includes provision of facilities to the
citizens for work and adequate livelihood with a
reasonable rest and leisure, etc.
Energy/electricity is essentially one of the
significant facilities required by the citizens for
manifold purposes, namely, uplifting of their
social and economic status. Non-supply of
electricity to the citizen regularly, is tantamount to
depriving them of one of the essentials of the life
including the security of economic activities,
which are relatable to their fundamental rights
protected under Articles 9 and 14 of the
Constitution. In the cases of the Bank of Punjab v.
Haris Steel Industries (PLD 2010 SC 1109),
Liaqat Hussain v. The Federation of Pakistan
(Constitution Petition No.50/2011), In Re: Human
Rights Case regarding fast food chain in F-9 Park
(PLD 2010 SC 759), In Re: SMC No.13/2009
(Case regarding Multi-Professional Housing
Schemes) (PLD 2011 SC 619) and Shehla Zia v.
WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693), Article 9 has been
interpreted and its scope has been enlarged to
each and every aspect of human life. Therefore,
whenever a policy is framed with reference to
uplifting the socio-economic conditions of the
citizens, object should be to ensure enforcement
of their fundamental rights.”
12. Seeking guidance from the above referred
dictums of the honorable Supreme Court, I am of
the considered opinion that the petitions are
maintainable and this court has ample powers
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 48 of 67
under the constitution to exercise the power of
judicial review in the matter as the matter relates to
the fixation of (FPA) tariff and prices for consumers
and is a part of regulatory function of the NEPRA
and has a direct connection with the economic well-
being of the people of Pakistan.
13. Before proceeding further, I find it
appropriate to mention relevant provisions of
NEPRA, 1997. Section 31 deals with tariffs, and
Sub-section (4) lay down the procedure of issuance
of notifications by the federal government regarding
the tariff determined in accordance with the said
provision. Section 32 (1)mandates that the Authority
shall, within 18 months from the commencement of
this Act prescribe procedures and standards for the
Authority’s prior approval of transmission
companies and distribution companies investment
and power acquisition programs. Section 46
stipulates Rules and Sub-section (2)(d) deals with
determination of rates, fees, charges and others
term and condition of licenses; and (f) procedure for
resolving disputes amongst the licensees and
consumers.
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority
(Tariff Standards and Procedure) Rules, 1998
commenced by virtue of section 46 of the 1997 Act.
o Rule 2(m)- defines tariff
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 49 of 67
o Rule 3- filing of petitions and communication;
o Rule 4(1)- Admission of petition
o Rule 4(7)- Authority may, while admitting the petition
allow immediate application of proposed tariff Subject to
an order for refund for protection of consumers
o Rule 12- Rulings of the presiding officer. Rule 12(1) to (4)
o Rule 14- Tentative opinions
o Rule 16- Decision by the Authority. Rule 16(2), (6), (11)
o Rule 18- Filing of tariff
o Rule 21 (d)- Notice of general rate changes to the
customers of licensees
For the purposes of the instant petitions, section 31,
more particularly, section 31(4) is most important. Following
amendments were made in section 31 of NEPRA Act 1997 till
to date:
Section 31 Of Act – dated 16-12-1997
Section 31 Of Act – new amendment dated : 31-07-2009 (through Ordinance which stood lapse)
Section 31 Of Act –further amendment dated: 29-09-2011
Tariff. (1)- As soon as may been, but not later than six months from the commencement of this Act , the Authority shall the determine and prescribe procedures and standards for determination, modification or revision of rates, charges and terms and conditions for the generation of electric power , transmission, interconnection, distribution services and power sales to consumers by licensees and until such procedures and standards are prescribe, the Authority shall determine, modify or revise such rates, charges and terms and conditions in accordance with the directions issued by the federal government. (2)- The Authority while determining the standards referred to in sub-section (1) shall –
a) Protect consumers against monopolistic and oligopolistic prices;
b) Keep in view the research,
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 50 of 67
development and capital investment programs costs of licensees;
c) Encourage efficiency in licensees operations and quality of service;
d) Encourage economic efficiency in the electric power industry;
e) Keep in view the economic and social policy objective of the federal government; and
f) Determine tariff so as to eliminate exploitation and minimize economic distortion
(3)- The procedures established under sub-section (1) shall include-
a) Time frame for decisions by the authority on tariff applications;
b) Opportunity for customers and other interested parties to participate meaningfully in the tariff approval process; and
c) Protection for refund, if any. To customers while tariff decision is pending
(4)- Notification of the Authority’s approved tariff, rates, charges and other term and conditions for the supply of electric power services by generation, transmission and distribution companies shall be made, in the official gazette by the federal government upon the intimation by the Authority; Provided that the federal government may, as soon as may be, but not later than 15 days of receipt of Authority’s intimation, require the Authority to consider its determination of such tariff, rates, charges and other terms and condition whereupon the Authority
In sub-section (4), - i. For the word
“Authority:”, at the end, the words, brackets, figure and letter “ Authority within period of 15 days of such intimation except where the federal government refers the matter to the Authority for reconsideration under sub-section (4A)” shall be substituted ; and
ii. “ Provided further that the Authority shall, on a monthly basis, review and revise the approved tariff on account of
In the said Act, in section 31 , in sub-section (4) for the second proviso the following shall be substituted, namely “Provided further that the Authority may, on a monthly basis and do not later than a period of 7 days make adjustment in the approved tariff on account of, any variation in the fuel charges and, policy guideline as the federal government may issue and , notify the tariff so adjusted in the official Gazette.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 51 of 67
shall, within 15 days, determine these anew after reconsideration and intimate the same to the federal government;
any variation in the fuel charges and policy guidelines to be issued by the federal; government in this behalf and recommend the r=tariff so revised to the federal government for the notification in the official gazette.”;and
iii. After sub-section (4) amended as aforesaid, the following new sub-sections shall be inserted, namely:-
“(4A) The federal government may, as soon as possible but not later than 15 days of receipt of the Authority’s intimation require the Authority’s to reconsider its determination of tariff, rates, charges and other terms and conditions made under sub-section (1) and the Authority shall reconsider and determine the same anew within a period of 15 days from the date of reference by the federal government” (4B) within 3 days of the expiry of the period available to the Authority under sub-section(4A), the federal government shall notify in the official Gazette,
a) The tariff reconsidered and determined by the Authority under sub-section (4A) if available; or
b) Where the Authority has not concluded the reconsideration, the tariff determined by the Authority under sub-section(1)
“(4C) not withstanding anything contained in this
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 52 of 67
section, the Authority shall continue to conclude its reconsideration under section(4A) and the effect of such reconsideration shall be adjusted by the Authority in the tariff, rates, charges or other terms and conditions determined by it under sub-section (1) for the subsequent period”
It is evident from section 31(4) of the Act 1997, the federal
government has a margin of 15 days to approve the
determination/assessment and notify the official gazette for any
charges to be imposed in the billing demand of next month.
Law was amended on 29-09-2011. The power to notify in the
official gazette is now vested with the Authority.
14. In my view following are the justifiable issues which
require determination:
i) Whether proviso to section 31 (4) of the NEPRA Act, 1997 is ultra vires to the constitution?
ii) Whether Fuel Adjustment Surcharge can be levied and demanded with retrospective effect?
iii) Whether on expiry of stipulated period of 15 days, provided under section 31 (4) of the NEPRA Act, Authority vests with power to levy and demand Fuel Adjustment Surcharge as part of tarrif?
iv) Whether scope of Fuel Adjustment Surcharge can be expanded/ enhanced to provide cover to the elements/factors of mismanagement, bad governance, inefficiency theft, inability to recover across the board? v) Whether already determined Tariff can be varied in the name of fuel adjustment?
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 53 of 67
15. I may deal to first point, as to whether proviso to section 31 (4) of NEPRA Act is ultra vires to the constitution or not?
For convenience Section 31 with inserted
proviso is being reproduced here in below:
“Tariff: (1)- As soon as may been, but not later than six
months from the commencement of this Act, the Authority
shall determine and prescribe procedures and standards for
determination, modification or revision of rates, charges
and terms and conditions for the generation of electric
power , transmission, interconnection, distribution services
and power sales to consumers by licensees and until such
procedures and standards are prescribe, the Authority shall
determine, modify or revise such rates, charges and terms
and conditions in accordance with the directions issued by
the federal government.
(2)- The Authority while determining the standards referred to in sub-section (1) shall
a) Protect consumers against monopolistic and oligopolistic prices; b) Keep in view the research, development and capital investment programs costs of licensees; c) Encourage efficiency in licensees operations and quality of service; d) Encourage economic efficiency in the electric power industry; e) Keep in view the economic and social policy objective of the federal government; and f) Determine tariff so as to eliminate exploitation and minimize economic distortion.
(3)- The procedures established under sub-section (1) shall
include-
a) Time frame for decisions by the authority on tariff applications; b) Opportunity for customers and other interested parties to participate meaningfully in the tariff approval process; and c) Protection for refund, if any. To customers while tariff decision is pending
(4)- Notification of the Authority’s approved tariff, rates,
charges and other term and conditions for the supply of
electric power services by generation, transmission and
distribution companies shall be made, in the official gazette
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 54 of 67
by the federal government upon the intimation by the
Authority;
Provided that the federal government may, as soon as may
be, but not later than 15 days of receipt of Authority’s
intimation, require the Authority to consider its
determination of such tariff, rates, charges and other terms
and condition whereupon the Authority shall, within 15
days, determine these anew after reconsideration and
intimate the same to the federal government;
Provided further that the Authority may, on a monthly basis
and not later than a period of 7 days, make adjustments in
the approved tariff on account of, any variation in the fuel
charges and, policy guidelines as the federal government
may issue and, notify the tariff so adjusted in the official
Gazette.
(5)- Each distribution company shall pay to the Federal
Government such surcharge as the Federal government,
from time to time, notify in respect of each unit of electric
power sold to the consumers and any amount paid under
this sub-section shall be considered as a cost incurred by
the distribution company to be included in the tariff
determined by the authority.”
There is no cavil to the proposition that legislator in
its wisdom can bring certain amendments in the Statute
and these amendment are fully protected unless found to
be offensive to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
constitution. Arbitrary exercise of authority and perverse
orders passed by the Authority, competent to pass order
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 55 of 67
does not render the provision ultra vires to the
Constitution. Man made laws are recurring ones, therefore,
in order to bring the law inconformity with the new or
changed situation is the right of legislator in which no
interference can be made except on the touchstone of
Article 8 of the constitution, therefore, plea of petitioner to
declare the inserted provision to section 31 (4) cannot be
acceded to as nothing unconstitutional for issuance of
declaration of ultra vires has been pointed.
16. Now, I would like to compass may view on the
second point i.e. as to whether Fuel Adjustment Surcharge
can be levied and demanded with retrospective effect or
not? My observations are as under:-
“There is no doubt that Government has the
authority to levy tax and can demand surcharge but
question arises is that, whether any tax payer can be taken
by surprise and require to adjust cost of any product,
which had already been reached to consumer? Answer to
this question is a big NO, as it looks not only ridiculous but
unjust as well. The constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan does not allow any sort of exploitation and permit
economic and social wrongs. It is provided in the law that
Authority empowered to make adjustment, due to variance
in the fuel prices and period for this purpose has been
prescribed as 15 days. Under the Rules, Authority is
empowered to allow interim levy subject to final
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 56 of 67
determination. In the fiscal statutes, interpretation in
favour of tax payer has to be made, instead of harsh and
hostile explanation to justify illegal act. The provision of
sub-section 2 of section 31 makes it obligatory upon the
regulatory authority to “Protect consumers against
monopolistic and oligopolistic prices; Encourage
efficiency in licensees operations and quality of
service; Encourage economic efficiency in the electric
power industry; Keep in view the economic and social
policy objective of the federal government; and
Determine tariff so as to eliminate exploitation and
minimize economic distortion. These are the mandatory
requirements of law and each word of the same
emphatically obliges the authority to determine rates or
charges by keeping in view the interest of the consumer. To
my mind, retrospective demand of surcharge from the
consumers, who are citizens of this country, is the worst
kind of exploitation. The situation becomes double
aggravated when the charge involves essential commodity
like electricity which is a basic and important ingredient of
right to life and right to live with dignity in any civilized
society, therefore, relying upon the case law cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioners at bar, the Levy and
demand of Fuel Adjustment Charges as arrears with
retrospective effect is declared as unconstitutional,
besides the law applicable, principles of natural justice and
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 57 of 67
dictums laid down by the superior courts of the country. I
am fortified in my opinion by the judgments relied by the
learned counsel for Petitioners, mentioned in their
arguments, more particularly 2005 SCMR 492 titled Govt.
of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Commerce Vs. M/s
Village Development Organization.
17. Coming to third issue as to whether on expiry of
stipulated period of 15 days, provided under section 31 (4)
of the NEPRA Act, authority vests with power to levy and
demand fuel adjustment surcharge?
Section-31(4) as amended up to date provides a
comprehensive mechanism for the determination of tariff,
which can be summarized as under:-
i) The tariff, rate, charges and other terms of
condition of for the supply of electric power
services by generation, distribution and
transmission companies shall be approved by
the authority.
ii) Such approval shall be made by the authority
through notification.
iii) Such notification shall be issued by the
Federal Government in official gazette.
iv) The authority shall intimate the Federal
Government about the determination of the
tariff, rates and charges to Federal
Government
v) Federal Government within a period of 15 days
of receipt of authority intimation may require it
to reconsider the determination made by it.
vi) The authority may reconsider to the
determination within a period of 15 days.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 58 of 67
vii) The authority may on a monthly basis and do
not later than a period of 7 days make
adjustment in the approved tariff on account
of any variation in the fuel charges and policy
guideline.
A bare perusal of the above makes it
abundantly clear that the determination of tariffs,
rates, charges or terms and conditions are subject to
“time-limits”. The legislature in its wisdom has laid
down specific time period of 15 days for Federal
Government for consideration of determination
intimated by the authority and then a further period of
15 days is prescribed for reconsideration of the
determination by the authority if the Federal
Government requires so on its consideration of the
tariff determined by the authority. To my mind, this
time frame provided in the legislation is meaningful,
purposive and in consonance with the spirit of law as
envisaged in section 31(2) supra. By devising a process
bound by time limits to perform certain acts the
legislature, in fact, has blocked the way for any
arbitrariness, executive whims, and extraneous
considerations, which are ordinarily bound to occur
due to laxity of time. This time-bound process has
further impeded the way to charge retrospectively from
the consumers. Here, I am not in agreement with the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of NEPRA that the
billing from consumers is always retrospective as no
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 59 of 67
doubt the electricity bills are normally sent at the close
of billing month but the bills are made on the basis of
tariff which is required to be determined and made
public for inviting objections, obviously, prior to the
consumption. It seems that authorities failed to make a
distinction between a bill and tariff. There is no cavil
to the proposition that the bill is charged after
consumption which is a retrospective act but the tariff
on the basis of which the bill is charged is always
prospective.
The frequent variations in the fuel charges affecting
the cost of the electricity generation obviously is an
important phenomena in determination of the tariff. In
order to cope with this situation an amendment was
introduced by adding impugned proviso to the section
31 (4). Now, due to insertion of the new proviso the
authority may on a monthly basis and do not later
than a period of 7 days make adjustment in the
approved tariff on account of any variation in the
fuel charges and policy guideline. Although the
authority has been mandated to make adjustment in
the approved tariff on account of variations in fuel
charges but any such adjustment is curtailed by the
words and figure “do not later than a period of 7
days”, therefore, any variation in the tariff beyond the
period of 7 days, on the face of it, is without any legal
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 60 of 67
force. While narrating the submissions of the learned
counsels for the petitioners, I have given a chart
specifying the date on which the fuel price adjustment
was determined and the month for which it was made.
The chart is reproduced here once again which shows
that the determination for the month of August, 2011
was made on 28.02.2012 after THE LAPSE OF ALMOST
7 MONTHS. So is the position with regard to remaining
determinations which were made between 5 to 8
months.
SRO No & Determination date
Date of Notification
Billing Month implementing the Notification
Corresponding month
Difference
202(1)/2012 dated 28.02.2012
29.02.2012 March, 2012 August, 2011 7 Months
374(1)/2012 dated 17.04.2012
17.04.2012 May, 2012 September, 2011
7 Months
447(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012
03.05.2012 June, 2012 October, 2011 8 Months
448(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012
03.05.2012 July, 2012 November, 2011
8 Months
449(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012
03.05.2012 July, 2012 December, 2011
7 Months
450(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012
03.05.2012 August, 2012 January, 2012
7 Months
523(1)/2012 dated 18.05.2012
22.05.2012 September,2012
February, 2012
6 Months
524(1)/2012 dated 18.05.2012
22.05.2012 October, 2012 March, 2012 6 Months
So the newly inserted proviso in no way
authorizes the authority to determine the variations, if
any, after a lapse of several months, instead of period
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 61 of 67
of specific days prescribed under the law. In view of the
above discussion, I am inclined to hold that the act of
the authorities to determine and levy the fuel
adjustment surcharge vide impugned notifications is
illegal, unlawful, void, arbitrary, perverse, whimsical,
exploitative, and against the very concept of due
process of law, hence are set aside.
18. Now coming to next preposition WHETHER
scope of Fuel Adjustment Surcharge can be expended/
enhanced to provide cover to the elements/factors of
mismanagement, bad governance, inefficiency, theft,
inability to recover across the board?
From the plain language of the proviso, it is
clear that the Fuel Adjustment Surcharge is meant to
adjust the fuel charges variations only. Any loss on
account of mismanagement, bad governance,
inefficiency, theft and inability to recover across the
board is outside the scope, purview and mandate of the
proviso to section 31(4) of the Act. Even otherwise, the
regulatory authorities like NEPRA, OGRA, PEMRA,
SECP, PTA and CCP have primarily been created in
order to ensure good governance in major economic
sectors of the country. The good governance, efficient
management, and credible functioning of the regulatory
authorities, has direct nexus with the public good and
public welfare. It would be quite outlandish and against
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 62 of 67
the very object of the establishment of the regularity
authorities if such authorities are let free to charge the
citizens of the country on account of their own failures,
negligence, mismanagement and corruption. The tariff
already includes the cost of management; therefore, it
would be an unjustified burden on the citizens who are
already saddled with heavy taxes on account of
mismanagement in tariff. Charging the tax-payers
again for the bad governance in the garb of fuel
adjustment is not only illegitimate but also amounts to
pave way for corruption in regulatory authorities as the
person at the helm of affairs would easily recover their
losses and deficits occurring on account of their own
negligence or corruption and corrupt practices, by
imposing fuel adjustment surcharge on citizens who
have no fault of theirs. Such demand, imposition or
levy of charge is in direct violation of the fundamental
rights of the citizens. In case of Muhammad Yasin
supra, the honorable Supreme Court has held that
“any increase in prices, which results from lack of
competence or integrity or because of inefficient
regulation would result in depriving the citizens of
their fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 9,
14, 18, 23, and 24 of the Constitution because the
scales would impermissibly stand tilted against
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 63 of 67
the citizens and in favor of those engaged in
regulated activities”. It is settled principle of law
that what cannot be achieved directly, cannot be
achieved indirectly. Fiscal laws are required to be
interpreted strictly, and when the situation is so that
the authorities throw their own blame on the ordinary
citizens, the duty of the court becomes more onerous
and all doors leading to arbitrary exercise of authority
must be shut so vigorously that no nasty air of
injustice, corruption and discrimination can pass
through. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the
considered opinion that the scope of levy/demand of
Fuel Adjustment Charges cannot be expanded and has
to remain within the variations in the prices of fuel.
19. Lastly, whether already determined Tariff can
be varied in the name of fuel adjustment?
While dealing the issue of ultra vires of the
impugned legislation, I have already held that the
second proviso to section 31(4) as substituted through
Act XVIII of 2011 is intra-vires. However, while dealing
with second proposition I have expressed my opinion
that Fuel Adjustment Surcharge cannot be levied with
retrospective effect. While dilating upon the third
question my view was that the determination beyond
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 64 of 67
the period prescribed under the law is illegal. While
propounding my analysis to the forth proposition, I
have laid down that the canvas of the fuel adjustment
charges cannot be expanded except the variations in
fuel prices. In the light of what has been discussed
earlier my answer to the last question is that the tariff
cannot be varied except by strictly adhering to the
procedure mandated in the provision of section 31 of
the Act itself. The authority is obliged to determine the
tariff on account of fuel variance by following the
fundamental principles of law which mandate that
a) the authority cannot determine the tariff with
retrospective effect; b) cannot make the determination
beyond the period prescribed under the second proviso;
and c) no other factors except variations in fuel prices
are to be kept in consideration of adjustment.
Judgments referred by the learned counsel for
respondents are not applicable to the present issue,
with utmost respect cannot be relied upon.
20. Before parting with this judgment, I am of the
view that the second proviso to section 31(4) as
substituted through Act XVIII of 2011 is not a good
piece of draftsmanship. A bare perusal of the same
makes it abundantly clear that it is vague, ambiguous
and confusing. The proviso is as follows:
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 65 of 67
“Provided further that the Authority may, on a
monthly basis and not later than a period of 7
days, make adjustments in the approved tariff on
account of, any variation in the fuel charges and,
policy guidelines as the federal government may
issue and, notify the tariff so adjusted in the official
Gazette”. (Emphasis added)
The entire provision of section 31 of the Act
including the second proviso, does not anywhere
stipulate as to when the period of 7 days commences?
Either it commences at the start of the month or at the
end of the month or after the expiry of the month? Even
the phrase “monthly basis” is not clear and no criteria
for the determination of fuel adjustment on monthly
basis has been provided and it has been left to the
sweet will of the authority. For example, if the variation
in the fuel charges takes place on 21st of a month, then
how the FAS would be calculated? Would it be
calculated from the start of that month or from 21st of
that month or from the month following that month? If
the month on 21st day of which the variation in fuel
charges takes place is calculated as a whole, then the
consumers would unjustifiably be burdened for the
charges for first 20 days of that month for which no
variation in fuel prices took place and the authority
and distributor would get an illegitimate advantage,
obviously, through abuse of process of law. The
authority would say that it would be calculated on the
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 66 of 67
basis of some specific formula but the question
remains that the legislation is silent in this regard and
fiscal liabilities cannot be imposed on the basis of some
vague assertions and determinations. Moreover, the
proviso does not disclose any criteria, procedure and
mannerism for the actual determination, assessment
and calculation of the ‘adjustment’. Furthermore, the
proviso seems to be an independent section within the
section to which it is a proviso, thus making the
determination of tariff complicated, and uncertain. To
my estimation, the proviso needs to be suitably
amended:
i) To provide specifically when the period of 7 days
would commence,
ii) To make clear the meaning of “month” for the
purposes of fuel adjustment,
iii) To lay down specific criteria and procedure for
determination and adjustment of variations in fuel
prices, and
iv) To make it consistent with the overall scheme of the
Act, more particularly, section 31 of the Act.
W.P No.2972/2011 Page 67 of 67
21. These are the reasons for my short order dated
24.10.2012.
22. Copy of this judgement be sent to the Secretary,
Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs,
Islamabad and Secretary, Law & Justice Commission of
Pakistan.
(SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI) JUDGE
Approved for Reporting.
“Waqar Ahmed”