P L D 2026 Peshawar 60
P L D 2026 Peshawar 60
Before Syed Arshad Ali and Wiqar Ahmad, JJ
KHAZANA SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through General Manager
and others---Petitioners
Versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Water
and Power, Islamabad and others---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3876-P of 2014 (and other connected petitions),
decided on 17th April, 2025.
(a) Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act (XL of 1997)---
----Preamble---National Electric Power Regulator Authority---Object,
purpose and scope---National Electric Power Regulator Authority
provides a comprehensive framework for regulating power sector in
Pakistan, promoting efficiency, transparency and fairness---
Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric
Power Act, 1997 has a broad scope that encompasses various aspects
of power sector in Pakistan inter alia, including regulation of power
sector; issues of licenses to power generation, transmission and
distribution companies; tariff determination for power generation,
transmission and distribution; ensuring fair and transparent prices;
market operation; consumer protection, etc.
(b) Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act (XL of 1997)---
----Ss. 31 & 51---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 77, 142 & 199---
Constitutional petition---Surcharge, levy of---Jurisdiction of Federal
Government--- Scope--- Petitioners/companies assailed different
surcharges imposed under S. 31(5) of Regulation of Generation,
Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997---Plea
raised by petitioners/companies was that this was the authority of
Legislature and not the Executive---Validity---National Electric
Power Regulator Authority does not determine surcharge---This is a
statutory function of Federal Government to impose the levy which
later becomes part of tariff and it cannot be treated as tax---Vires of
validating provision was not under challenge, therefore a strong
presumption of Constitutionality was attached to such enactment---
Surcharge was Constitutionally not invalid due to its initial mode of
introduction---In its current form, S. 31(8)(a) of Regulation of
Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act,
1997 had granted excessive discretion to the Executive and was inconsistent with the object and purpose of Regulation of
Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act,
1997---High Court declared to read down provision of S. 31(8)(a) of
Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric
Power Act, 1997, to restrict its application solely to public sector
projects that directly pertained to generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity---High Court directed Federal Government
that in exercise of its powers under S. 31(8)(a) of Regulation of
Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act,
1997, it should ensure that any surcharge levied was strictly
confined to projects within the electricity sector---High Court further
declared that any imposition of surcharges beyond such scope
would be deemed ultra vires Regulation of Generation, Transmission
and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997---High Court advised the
relevant authorities to review and amend the provision to explicitly
reflect such limitation, ensuring compliance with statutory
framework governing power sector---Constitutional petition was
disposed of accordingly.
Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and others
1997 SCMR 641; Jurists Foundation through Chairman v. Federal
Government through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others PLD
2020 SC 01; Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and others v. Government
of N.W.F.P. through Secretary Law and others PLD 2002 SC 460; Shahtaj
Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Government of Pakistan through
Secretary Finance and others 2024 SCMR 1656 and Province of Punjab
through Secretary Agriculture Department, Lahore v. Saleem Ijaz and
others 2023 SCMR 774 rel.
(c) Interpretation of statutes---
----Fiscal statute---Validating a levy retrospectively---Principle---
Legislative competence of the Parliament to validate a levy
retrospectively, where procedural or Constitutional infirmities have
been identified by a Court, has consistently been upheld, provided
that the defect in the original enactment is effectively addressed
through substantive legislative measures---Mechanism of re-
enactment or retrospective validation has been judicially recognized
as a legitimate tool of legislative correction, enabling the State to
preserve fiscal measures and statutory levies that may otherwise
fall due to procedural lapses.
Baz Muhammad Kakar and others v. Federation of Pakistan through
Ministry of Law and Justice and others PLD 2012 SC 923; Engineer
Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others
2013 SCMR 1337; Messrs Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.)
Ltd. through Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas and others v. Federation of
Pakistan through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and
others PLD 2020 SC 641 and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and another v. Durrani
Ceramics and others 2014 SCMR 1630 rel.
(d) Interpretation of Constitution---
----Trichotomy of powers---Scope---Constitution is based on the
principle of trichotomy of powers---Legislature makes laws, the
Executive executes it, while the Judicature is entrusted with duty to
interpret it---Constitution identifies and explains authority of the
Parliament to exclusively make laws with respect to any matter in
the Federal legislative list---All such matters pertaining to such areas
in the Federation are not included in any Province.
(e) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 77 & 142---Levy of tax---Delegation of powers---Scope---Levy
of tax for the purposes of Federation is not permissible except by or
under the authority of an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)---Such
legislative powers cannot be delegated to executive authorities---
Parliament alone and not the Government/Executive is empowered
to levy tax---Delegation of such powers to Government Executive is
for the purpose of implementation of such laws, which is to be done
by framing rules or issuing notifications etc.
Cyanamid Pakistan Ltd. and another v. Collector of Customs
(Appraisement), through Assistant Collector Customs House, Karachi
and others PLD 2005 SC 495 rel.
(f ) Interpretation of statutes---
----Reading in and reading down a provision---Object, purpose and
scope---When open ended or closed ended legislative provisions
come for scrutiny before Courts, the same may be examined while
applying principles of reading in and reading down ---Court must
exercise restraint to save the statute instead of destroying it---
Appropriate course is to interpret the statute in such a manner to
align it with its object and purpose---Principles of reading down and
reading in serve as essential tools in statutory interpretation,
allowing Courts to uphold legislative intent while ensuring
conformity with Constitutional mandates--- Reading down is
employed to preserve validity of a statute by construing its
provisions in a manner that aligns with the Constitutional
principles, thus preventing the need for striking down the
legislation---This approach is particularly useful when a provision
appears overly broad or ambiguous but can be interpreted in a
restricted manner to maintain its legality and effectiveness---Courts
apply such principle to avoid declaring statues unconstitutional
unless absolutely necessary, favoring an interpretation that keeps
the law functional within the permissible framework---Conversely, reading in is used when a legislative omission results in ambiguity
or unintended consequences---In such cases, Courts may infer and
incorporate language that aligns with the legislative intent while
ensuring that the statue remains coherent and effective---Such
principle is applied cautiously, ensuring that judicial intervention
does not amount to unauthorized legislation but rather serves to
give effect to the true purpose of law.
Schacter v. Canada [1992] 2 SCR 679; AAM Log Itehad and another v.
The Election Commission of Pakistan and others PLD 2022 SC 39;
Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others v. M.Q.M.
through Deputy Convener and others PLD 2014 SC 531; Arshad
Mehmood v. Commissioner/Delimitation Authority, Gujranwala and
others PLD 2014 Lah. 221; Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba
Imtiaz PLD 2011 SC 260; Sundew Properties Limited v. Telangana State
Electricity Regulatory Commission and others AIR 2024 SC 3155 and
Introduction to the Interpretation of Statutes by Dr. Avtar Singh and
Dr. Harpreet Kaur (Third Edition, 2009, pp. 238, 239) rel.
Shumail Ahmad Butt, Isaac Ali Qazi, Iqbal Akhtar Khan, Abdur
Rahim Khan Jadoon and Muhammad Yasir Khattak for Petitioners.
Sanaullah, Additional Attorney General, Asad Jan, Malik Sajjad
Manzoor, Saeed Khan Akhoonzada, Farhad Ali, Ms. Zainab Iftikhar,
Junior of Abdur Rauf Rohaila, along with Muhammad Tofeeq, Liaison
Officer, Amir Nawaz, Chief Law Officer, PESCO/TESCO, Zafar Khan,
Senior Law Officer, MOE and Muhammad Farooq Afridi for NEPRA for
Respondents.
Dates of hearing: 22nd, 23rd and 24th January, 2025.
JUDGMENT
SYED ARSHAD ALI, J.---We intend to dispose of the instant petition,
along with the connected petitions in schedule "A" and "B", through
this common judgment, as they involve similar questions of law and
fact. The petitioners' case is mainly premised on two core grounds:
first, that Section 31(5) of the Generation, Transmission and
Distribution of Electric Power Act 1997, inserted through the Finance
Act, 2008, is ultra vires the Constitution; and second, that the
impugned notifications issued by the Federal Government lack legal
authority and are beyond the scope of the NEPRA Act.
A. Facts of the Case
2. The petitioner being engaged with manufacturing of sugar
mills/products through its authorized person has filed the instant
constitutional petition, challenging the vires of Section 31(5) of the
Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 ("NEPRA Act") and the impugned notifications issued by the
respondent, Federal Government regarding levy of surcharge. The
petitioner primarily contends that the imposition of Debt Servicing
Surcharge ("DS Surcharge"), Tariff Rationalization Surcharge ("TR
Surcharge"), NeelumJehium Surcharge ("NJ Surcharge") and Universal
Obligations Surcharge ("UO Surcharge") under section 31(5) of the
NEPRA Act is in conflict with the mandatory provisions of section 31(4)
as it only relates to the determination of tariff by the National Electric
Power Regulatory Authority ("NEPRA"), and no other authority
including the government can notify additional tariff in the garb of
surcharge. Rather, in order to determine the tariff, it cannot be
undertook without having prior recourse to the NEPRA. Moreover, the
NEPRA is under obligation to protect consumer from monopolistic and
oligopolistic prices in view of section 31(2) of the NEPRA Act, which
has laid down the standard and guidelines and in view of these
provisions surcharge is not allowed. Whereas, the NEPRA being the
authority was required to struck down the surcharge but instead of
doing so the NEPRA has acted as agent of the Federal Government and
not as regulatory body. Moreover, section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act has
provided a naked weapon to the Federal Government to levy 'any
surcharge' in 'any name'. On the contrary, levy of any tax, tariff,
charge or surcharge is the sole authority of legislature and not the
executive. In the present matter the powers of Federal Government to
levy and notify surcharge comes within the ambit of excessive
delegation, which is not only bad in the eyes of law but also amounts
to encroachment upon the powers of legislature, thus, the
arrangement under section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act is violative of the
constitutional scheme of separation of powers. In all these connected
petitions in Schedule "A", the petitioners have jointly challenged the
vires of section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act and the notifications issued by
the Federal Government.
3. In the petitions in Schedule "B", the petitioners have challenged
the vires of section 31(8) of the NEPRA Act almost on the same grounds
to that of the petitions in Schedule "A". The petitioners contends that
the issuance of the impugned notification by the Federal Government
with respect of levy of Financial Cost Surcharge ("FC Surcharge") is
ultra vires the law and Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"),
and against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. In this
way, conferring of this legislative function over executive is hit by the
well-established doctrine of excessive delegation of legislative powers.
B. Arguments of the Parties
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to Section
3 of the NEPRA Act, have contended that NEPRA is a statutory entity created under the NEPRA Act. They argue that, in accordance with
Section 31 of the said Act, only NEPRA can charge any tariff, charge,
rate or surcharge. Thus, the imposition of tax under the garb of
surcharge by the Federal Government is against the scheme of the
Constitution and law. Article 154 of the Constitution read with entery
in Part II of Fourth Schedule requires that imposition of any such levy
in relating to electricity shall be routed through Council of Common
Interest ("CCI") established under Article 153. They further contend
that the impugned notifications issued under section 31(5) whereby
the Federal Government has imposed DS Surcharges and FC
Surcharges amounts to taking away the statutory authority of the
NEPRA and conferring it on the sub-legislative executive authority,
thus, these are ultra vires the section 7(3)(a), section 7(6) and sections
31(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the NEPRA Act and liable to be struck down.
Similarly, the provisions of section 31(5) itself constitute excessive
delegation and are against the spirit and scheme of the Constitution as
well as the NEPRA Act, therefore, these provisions are too liable to be
declared ultra vires.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents argue that
section 31(5) is a validly promulgated law introduced through Finance
Act, 2008, which confers powers and jurisdiction on the Federal
Government to notify the NEPRA's approved tariff, rates, charges and
other terms and conditions for the supply of electric power services by
the generation, transmission and distribution companies upon
intimation by NEPRA. Section 31 of the NEPRA Act elaborately lay
down a procedure for the determination of tariff, rates, charges, and
terms and conditions for power sales to consumers by licensee,
however, the NEPRA is required to recommend it to the Federal
Government for notification. Furthermore, the Federal Government
enjoy vast powers to levy surcharge in addition to the tariff
determined by the NEPRA, as these powers does not encroach upon
the powers and functions of NEPRA in any manner under the Act. In
neither way, the Surcharges levied by the Federal Government are in
conflict with the Constitution, nor does it come within the purview of
excessive delegation. Rather, this power of the Federal Government
originates from Section 31(5) that is a validly enacted law by the
Legislature.
C. Issues for determination
6. We have anxiously considered the arguments of learned counsel
for the parties and thoroughly examined the record and material
placed before us. Before delving into the respective contentions of the
parties, it is imperative, for ease of reference, to delineate the core
legal issues that emerged during the course of arguments and which lie at the heart of the present controversy. These issues are pivotal for
the adjudication of the matter at hand. The principal questions
requiring determination are as follows: (i) Whether the insertion of
Section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act through the Finance Act, 2008 renders
it constitutionally invalid?; (ii) Whether the imposition of the
impugned surcharge by the Federal Government, without recourse to
the Council of Common Interests (CCI) under Article 154 of the
Constitution, violates the constitutional scheme, particularly in view of
electricity being a subject in Part II of the Federal Legislative List?; (iii)
Whether the delegation of power to impose surcharges under Section
31(8) constitutes excessive delegation?; and (iv) Whether Section 31(8)
confers unfettered and unchecked authority upon the Federal
Government, enabling the imposition of surcharges for any public
sector project, thereby necessitating judicial scrutiny under the
doctrines of "reading down" and "reading in" to preserve the
constitutionality of the provision?
7. It is relevant to mention that after the filing of the instant petition
and other connected petitions, this Court, through an interim order
dated 22.01.2015, suspended the recovery of the impugned levy.
However, following the suspension of the judgment of the Divisional
Bench of the Lahore High Court by the Apex Court involving
adjudication of a similar issue; this Court subsequently vacated the
interim order on 23.07.2015, allowing the recovery of the levy under
the impugned notifications. Nonetheless, the collection of the stayed
amount was deferred until the final adjudication of the main petitions.
On 18.02.2021, all connected petitions were adjourned sine die, as the
issue concerning the levy of surcharge under Section 31(5) was
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Subsequently,
through its order dated 23.11.2023 in C.P. No. 1136 of 2015 and C.M.As
2794 and 2795 of 2015, the Apex Court revived these connected
petitions and remanded the matters for disposal on merits.
(i) Whether the insertion of Section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act through
the Finance Act, 2008 renders it constitutionally invalid?
8. A central issue in the present controversy pertains to the Federal
Government's authority to levy a surcharge. Through Section 31(5) of
the NEPRA Act introduced through Finance Act, 2008, the Federal
Government is empowered to levy and notify a surcharge, while the
distribution companies are obligated to pay the imposed surcharge.
For a comprehensive analysis, the verbatim text of Section 31(5) is
reproduced below.
(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 subsection shall be
considered as a cost incurred by the distribution company to be
included in the tariff determined by the Authority.
9. Pursuant to the powers conferred by parliament upon the Federal
Government, the Federal Government has issued the following
notifications which are impugned through this as well as the
connected petitions:
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the October 03, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O. 908(I)/2014.---In pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of
the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is
pleased to notify the surcharge at the rate of Rs.0.30/KMh on
account of recovering the debt servicing applicable to all the
consumer categories on per unit consumption in respect of Ex-
WAPDA Distribution Companies (XWDISCOs), namely:-
Sd/---
(Syed Mateen Ahmed) Section Officer (Tariff)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the November 01st, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.982(I)/2014.---In pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of
the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in supersession of its
Notification No.S.R.O.911(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013,
the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be
levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories,
specified in the Schedule below, of electricity consumers for
electricity sold by Quetta Electric Supply Company (QESCO),
during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates
of electricity across the country for each of the consumer
category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with
effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:-
SCHEDULE
# Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./ KWh)
Residential Al
1. 301-700 Units 1.00
2. Above 700 Units 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
--
3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Commercial A2
5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
6. Regular 1.00
7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50
8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Industrial B
9 BI
10. B1 (Peak) 0.50
11. B1 (Off Peak) 1.00
12. B2 -‑
13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
Single Point Supply for further
distribution
19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW
20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto
500 KW
21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00
23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv
24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00
26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv
27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
2. Quetta Electric Supply Company (QESCO) shall deposit the amount
of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation
Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central
Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the
liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this
notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the
distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by
NEPRA.
3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December,
2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the
consumption of electricity of every category of electricity
consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category
"Residential A-1 and such additional charges?
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, QESCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to
this notification.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the November 01st, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.983(I)/2014.---In pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of
the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in supersession of its
Notification No.S.R.O.912(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013,
the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be
levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories,
specified in the Schedule below, of electricity consumers for
electricity sold by Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO),
during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates
of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with
effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:-
SCHEDULE
# Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh)
Residential Al
1 301-700 Units 0.50
2 Above 700 Units 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
--
3 Time of Use (TOU) Peak 0.50
4 Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1,00
Commercial A2
5 For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
6 Regular 1.00
7 Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50
8 Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Industrial B
9. B1
10. B1 (Peak) 0.50
11. B1 (Off Peak) 1.00
12. B2 -‑
13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
Single Point Supply for further
distribution
19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW
20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto
500 KW
21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00
23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv
24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00
26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv
27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
2. Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO) shall deposit the
amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal
Obligation Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at
Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for
discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge
paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost
incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff
determined by NEPRA.
3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December,
2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the
consumption of electricity of every category of electricity
consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category
"Residential A-1 and such additional charges-
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, HESCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to
this notification.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the October 0lst, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.984(I)/2014.---In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) of section
31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and
Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in
supersession of its Notification No.S.R.O.913(I)/2013, dated the
11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify
that there shall be levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned
against following categories of electricity consumers for
electricity sold by Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (FESCO),
during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates
of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with
effect from lst October, 2014, namely:-
S# Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh)
Residential Al
1. 301-700 Units 1.00
2. Above 700 Units 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Commercial A2
5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
6. Regular 1.00
7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50
8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Industrial B
9 B1
10. B1 (Peak) 0.50
11. B1 (Off Peak) 1.00
12. B2 --
13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
Single Point Supply for further distribution
19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW
20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto 500
KW
21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00
23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv
24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00
26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv
27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
2. Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (FESCO) shall deposit the
amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal
Obligation Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at
Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for
discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge
paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost
incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff
determined by NEPRA.
3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December,
2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the
consumption of electricity of every category of electricity
consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category
"Residential A-1 and such additional charges-
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, FESCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to
this notification.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad the November 01st, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.985(I)/2014.---In pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of the
Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in supersession of its
Notification No.S.R.O.914(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013,
the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be
levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories,
specified in the Schedule below, of electricity consumers for
electricity sold by Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO),
during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates
of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with
effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:-
SCHEDULE
# Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh)
Residential Al
1. 301-700 Units 1.00
2. Above 700 Units 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
-‑
3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Commercial A2
5. For peak load requirement less than
5kw
0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
6. Regular 1.00
7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50
8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Industrial B
9. B1
10. B1 Peak 0.50
11. B1 Off Peak 1.00
12. B2 -‑
13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
Single Point Supply for further
distribution
19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW
20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5KW and upto
500 KW
21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00
23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv --
24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00
26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv --
27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
29. Tariff K - AJK --
30. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak (AJK) 0.50
31. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak (AJK) 1.00
2. Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO) shall deposit the
amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal
Obligation Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at
Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for
discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge
paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost
incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff
determined by NEPRA.
3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December,
2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/ kwh on the
consumption of electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category
"Residential A-1" and such additional charges-
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, IESCO power Purchase Price
at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to this
notification.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the November 1st, 2014.
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.986(I)/2014.---In pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of
the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in supersession of its
Notification and No.S.R.O.915(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013, the
Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied a
surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories, specified in the
Schedule below, of electricity consumers for electricity sold by Lahore
Electric Supply Company (LESCO), during each of the billing month,
for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government
Policy with effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:-
SCHEDULE
# Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh)
Residential Al
1. 301-700 Units 1.00
2. Above 700 Units 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and above
3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
4. Time of Use (TOU)-Off-Peak 1.00
Commercial A2
5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and above
6. Regular 1.00
7. Time of Use (TOU)-Prak 0.50
8. Time of Use (TOU)-Off-Prak 1.00
Industrial B
9. B1
10. B1 Peak 0.50
11. B1 Peak 1.00
12. B2 --
13. B1 Off Peak 0.50
14. B2-TOU (Peak) 1.00
15. B3-TOU (Peak) 0.50
16. B3-TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
17. B4-TOU (Peak) 0.50
18. B4-TOU (Of-Peak) 1.00
Single Point Supply for further distribution
19. C1 (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW
20. C1 (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto 500
KW
21. C1 (c) Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50
22. C1 (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00
23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv
24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50
25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00
26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv
27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU)-Off-Peak 1.00
29. Tariff K-AJK
30. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak (AJK) 0.50
31. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak (AJK) 1.00
2. Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) shall deposit the
amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal
Obligation Fund to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at
Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for
discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge
paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost
incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff
determined by NEPRA.
3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December,
2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the
consumption of electricity of every category of electricity
consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category
"Residential A-1" and such additional charges-
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-1, Fuel Price
Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, LESCO power Purchase
Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to
this notification.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the November 01, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.987(I)/2014.---In pursuance of subsection (4) of section 31 of
the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997). and in supersession of its
Notification No.S.R.O.916(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013,
the Federal Government is pleased to notify the National Electric
Power Regulatory Authority's approved tariff as below for
GEPCO with the Order of the Authority at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, GEPCO Power Purcuase
Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (for
supply of electric power to consumers by distribution licensees)
at Annex-IV to this notification, with effect from 0lst October,
2014
2. There shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional
charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of
electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the
lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1" and
such additional charges-
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the November 01st, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.988(I)/2014. - In pursuance of subsection (4) of section 31 of the
Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in supersession of its
Notification No.S.R.O.917(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013,
the Federal Government is pleased to notify the National Electric
Power Regulatory Authority's approved tariff as below for
MEPCO with the Order of the Authority at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, MEPCO Power Purchase
Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (for
supply of electric power to consumers by distribution licensees)
at Annex-IV to this notification, with effect from 01st October,
2014
2. There shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional
charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of
electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the
lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1"
and such additional charges?
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the October 01st, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.989(I)/2014.---In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) of section
31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and
Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in
supersession of its Notification No.S.R.O.918(I)/2013, dated the
11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify
that there shall be levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned
against the categories specified in the Schedule below, of
electricity consumers for electricity sold by Sukkur Electric
Power Supply Company (SEPCO), during each of the billing
month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the
country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with effect from 1st October, 2014,
namely:-
SCHEDULE
# Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh)
Residential Al
1. 301-700 Units 0.51
2. Above 700 Units 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Commercial A2
5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
6. Regular 1.00
7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50
8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Industrial B
9. B1
10. B1 Peak 0.50
11. B1 Off Peak 1.00
12. B2 --
13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
14. 82 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.01
15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
Single Point Supply for further
distribution
19. C 1 (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW
20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto
500 KW
21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00
23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv
24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00
26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv
27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
2. Sukkur Electric Power Company (SEPCO) shall deposit the amount
of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation
Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central
Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the
liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this
notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the
distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by
NEPRA.
3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December,
2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the
consumption of electricity of every category of electricity
consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category
"Residential A-1" and such additional charges-
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, SEPCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to
this notification.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the November 01st, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.990(I)/2014.---In pursuance of subsection (4) of section 31 of
the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in supersession of its
Notification No.S.R.O.325(I)/2014, dated the 25th April, 2014, the
Federal Government is pleased to notify the National Electric
Power Regulatory Authority's approved tariff as below for
PESCO with the Order of the Authority at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, PESCO Power Purchase
Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (for
supply of electric power to consumers by distribution licensees)
at Annex-IV to this notification, with effect from Olst October,
2014
2. There shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional
charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of
electricity by every category of electricity consumer except the
life line domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1"
and such additional charges-
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the October 0lst, 2014
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O.991(I) /2014.---In pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of
the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is
pleased to notify that there shall be levied a surcharge at the
rate mentioned against the categories specified in the Schedule
below, of electricity consumers for electricity sold by Tribal
Electric Supply Company (TESCO), during each of the billing
month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the
country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with effect from 1st October, 2014,
namely:-
SCHEDULE
# Tariff Category/Particular Rate Rs./KWh)
Residential Al
1. 301-700 Units --
2. Above 700 Units 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
--
3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Commercial A2
5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50
For peak load requirement 5 KW and
above
6. Regular 1.00
7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50
8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
Industrial B
9. Bl --
10. B1 (Peak) 0.50
11. B1 (Off Peak) 1.00
12. B2 --
13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50
18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00
Single Point Supply for further
distribution
19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW --
20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5KW and upto
500 KW
--
21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00
23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 Kv --
24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50
25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00
26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv
27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50
28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00
2. Tribal Electric Supply Company (TESCO) shall deposit the amount
of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation
Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central
Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the
liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this
notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the
distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by
NEPRA.
3. There shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional
charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of
electricity by every category of electricity consumer except the
life line domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1"
and such additional charges?
(a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between
the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified
rate; and.
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro
Power Development Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive use for the Neelum-
Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, TESCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to
this notification.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the 10th June, 2015
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O. 569(I)/2015.---In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) of
section 31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and
Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in
supersession of its notification No. S.R.O. 985(I)/2014, dated the
01st November 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to
notify the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's
determined Schedule of Electricity Tariffs for the Islamabad
Electric Supply Company Limited (IESCO), subject to and along
with amount of subsidy and surcharges, with immediate effect,
as attached herewith. The Order of the Authority at Annex-I,
Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, IESCO Power
Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of
Tariff (For Supply of Electric Power to Consumers by
Distribution Licensee) at Annex-IV to this notification is notified,
in respect of IESCO.
2. Provided that in pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of the
Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is
pleased to notify that there shall be levied with immediate effect
a surcharge namely, "Tariff Rationalization Surcharge" at the
rate mentioned against categories of electricity consumers as
specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by
IESCO, during each of the billing month, for maintaining
uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the
consumer category. IESCO shall deposit the amount of Tariff
Rationalization Surcharge in a Fund called the "Tariff
Rationalization Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account
maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee)
Limited and utilized exclusively for discharging of determined
cost of power producers. The Tariff Rationalization Surcharge
shall be considered as a cost incurred by IESCO and included in
the tariff determined by NEPRA.
3. Provided further that in pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31
of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution
of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997) and in supersession of its
notification No. S.R.O. 908(I)/2014, dated the 03rd October 2014,
the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be
levied with immediate effect a surcharge namely, "Financing
Cost Surcharge" at the rate and categories of electricity
consumers as specified in Schedule of Electricity Tariff for
electricity sold by IESCO, during each of the billing month. IESCO
shall deposit the amount of Financing Cost Surcharge in a Fund
called the "Financing Cost Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency
(Guarantee) Limited for the exclusive use of discharging the
financing cost of various loans obtained to discharge liabilities
of power producers against the sovereign guarantees of the
Government of Pakistan. The Financing Cost Surcharge shall be
considered as a cost incurred by IESCO and included in the tariff
determined by NEPRA.
4. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December,
2015, Neelum-Jhelum Surcharge at the rate and categories of
electricity consumers as specified in Schedule of Electricity
Tariff for electricity sold by IESCO, during each of the billing
month and such surcharge shall be deposited in a Fund called
the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Development Fund" to be kept
in the Escrow Account of the Neelum-Jhelum Company for
exclusive use for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the 10th June, 2015
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O. 574(I)/2015.---In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) of
section 31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and
Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in
supersession of its notification No. S.R.O. 990(I)/2014, dated the 0
1st November 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to notify
the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's determined
Schedule of Electricity Tariffs for the Peshawar Electric Supply
Company Limited (PESCO), subject to and along with amount of
subsidy and surcharges, with immediate effect, as attached
herewith. The Order of the Authority at Annex-I, Fuel Price
Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, PESCO Power Purchase
Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (For
Supply of Electric Power to Consumers by Distribution Licensee)
at Annex-IV to this notification is notified, in respect of PESCO.
2. Provided that in pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of the
Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is
pleased to notify that there shall be levied with immediate effect
a surcharge namely, "Tariff Rationalization Surcharge" at the
rate mentioned against categories of electricity consumers as
specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by
PESCO, during each of the billing month, for maintaining
uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the
consumer category. PESCO shall deposit the amount of Tariff
Rationalization Surcharge in a Fund called the "Tariff
Rationalization Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account
maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited and utilized exclusively for discharging of determined
cost of power producers. The Tariff Rationalization Surcharge
shall be considered as a cost incurred by PESCO and included in
the tariff determined by NEPRA.
3. Provided further that in pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31
of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution
of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997) and in supersession of its
notification No. S.R.O. 908(I)/2014, dated the 03rd October 2014,
the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be
levied with immediate effect a surcharge namely, "Financing
Cost Surcharge" at the rate and categories of electricity
consumers as specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for
electricity sold by PESCO, during each of the billing month.
PESCO shall deposited the amount of Financing Cost Surcharge
in a Fund called the "Financing Cost Fund" to be kept in the
Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency
(Guarantee) Limited for the exclusive use of discharging the
financing cost of various loans obtained to discharge liabilities
of power producers against the sovereign guarantees of the
Government of Pakistan. The Financing Cost Surcharge shall be
considered as a cost incurred by PESCO and included in the
tariff determined by NEPRA.
4. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December,
2015, Neelum-Jhelum Surcharge at the rate and categories of
electricity consumers as specified in Schedule Of Electricity
Tariff for electricity sold by PESCO, during each of the billing
month and such surcharge shall be deposited in a Fund called
the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Development Fund" to be kept
in the Escrow Account of the Neelum-Jhelum Company for
exclusive use for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad, the 10th June, 2015
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O. 575(I)/2015.---In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) of
section 31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and
Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), and in
supersession of its notification No. S.R.O. 991(I)/2014, dated the
01st November 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to
notify the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's
determined Schedule of Electricity Tariffs for the Tribal Electric
Supply Company Limited (TESCO), subject to and along with
amount of subsidy and surcharges, with immediate effect, as
attached herewith. The Order of the Authority at Annex-1, Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, TESCO Power
Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of
Tariff (For Supply of Electric Power to Consumers by
Distribution Licensee) at Annex-IV to this notification is notified,
in respect of TESCO.
2. Provided that in pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of the
Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is
pleased to notify that there shall be levied with immediate effect
a surcharge namely, "Tariff Rationalization Surcharge" at the
rate mentioned against categories of electricity consumers as
specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by
TESCO, during each of the billing month, for maintaining
uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the
consumer category. TESCO shall deposit the amount of Tariff
Rationalization Surcharge in a Fund called the "Tariff
Rationalization Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account
maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee)
Limited and utilized exclusively for discharging of determined
cost of power producers. The Tariff Rationalization Surcharge
shall be considered as a cost incurred by TESCO and included in
the tariff determined by NEPRA.
3. Provided further that in pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31
of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution
of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997) and in supersession of its
notification No. S.R.O. 908(I)/2014, dated the 03rd October 2014,
the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be
levied with immediate effect a surcharge namely, "Financing
Cost Surcharge" at the rate and categories of electricity
consumers as specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for
electricity sold by TESCO, during each of the billing month.
TESCO shall deposit the amount of Financing Cost Surcharge in a
Fund called the "Financing Cost Fund" to be kept in the Escrow
Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency
(Guarantee) Limited for the exclusive use of discharging the
financing cost of various loans obtained to discharge liabilities
of power producers against the sovereign guarantees of the
Government of Pakistan. The Financing Cost Surcharge shall be
considered as a cost incurred by TESCO and included in the
tariff determined by NEPRA.
4. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December,
2015, Neelum-Jhelum Surcharge at the rate and categories of
electricity consumers as specified in Schedule of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by TESCO, during each of the billing
month and such surcharge shall be deposited in a Fund called
the "Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Development Fund" to be kept
in the Escrow Account of the Neelum-Jhelum Company for
exclusive use for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.
10. Through the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and
Distribution of Electric Power (Amendment) Act, 2021 (XIV of 2021),
Section 31(5) ibid was omitted and substituted by inserting subsection
(8) of Section 31, which reads as under:
[(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and in addition
to the tariff, rates and charges notified under subsection (7) and
this subsection, each electric power supplier shall collect such
surcharges from any or all categories of consumers, as the
Federal Government may charge and notify in the official
Gazette from time to time, in respect of each unit of electric
power sold to any or all categories of consumers and deposit the
amount so collected in such manner as may be prescribed. The
amount of such surcharges shall be deemed as a cost incurred
by the electric power supplier and included in the tariff notified
under subsection (7):
Provided that such surcharges shall be levied for the following
purposes, namely:--
(a) funding of any public sector project of public importance [to the
extent decided by the Federal Government]; and
(b) fulfillment of any financial obligation of the Federal Government
with respect to electric power services [to the extent decided by
the Federal Government].
Explanation.---For the purposes of this proviso, the term "financial
obligations" includes obligations of the Federal Government to
make payments in respect of purchase of electric power as well
as obligations related to electric power services secured through
issuance of sovereign guarantee:
Provided further that the aggregate amount of such surcharges shall
not exceed ten percent of the aggregate revenue requirement of all electric power suppliers, engaged in supply of electric power
to end consumers, as determined by the Authority.]
Similarly, through the same amendment a validation clause was
inserted in the NEPRA Act, which reads as under:
51. Validation. [(1)] Anything done, actions taken, orders passed,
instruments made, notifications issued, agreements made,
proceedings initiated, processes or communications issued,
powers conferred, assumed or exercised by the Federal
Government in terms of subsection (5) of section 31 on or after
the first day of July, 2008 till the coming into force of the
Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be deemed to have
been validly done, made, issued, taken, initiated, conferred,
assumed and exercised and shall be deemed to have effect
accordingly.]
[(2)] All acts done or taken and notifications issued by the Federal
Government with respect to electric power services, from the
enactment of the Regulation of the Generation, Transmission
and Distribution of Electric Power (Amendment) Act, 2018 till
the coming into force of the Regulation of the Generation,
Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power (Amendment)
Act, 2021, shall be deemed to have been validly made and issued
under this Act].
11. The NEPRA Act provides a compressive framework for
regulating the power sector in Pakistan, promoting efficiency,
transparency, and fairness. The NEPRA Act has a broad scope that
encompasses various aspects of the power sector in Pakistan, inter
alia, including the regulation of power sectors; issuance of licenses to
power generation, transmission, and distribution companies; tariff
determination for power generation, transmission, and distribution;
ensuring fair and transparent prices; market operation; consumer
protection, etc.
12. Under the existing legal framework, "tariff" is comprehensively
defined under Rule 2(m) of the National Electric Power Regulatory
Authority Tariff, Standards, and Procedure Rules, 1998 ("Tariff Rules")
as the rates, charges, terms, and conditions applicable to the
generation, transmission, interconnection, distribution, and sale of
electric power by a licensed entity. The NEPRA Act vests exclusive
authority in NEPRA to determine tariffs. Section 7(3)(a) of the Act
mandates NEPRA to set the tariff, rates, and charges for power services
and recommend them to the Federal Government for notification.
Furthermore, Section 31 of the Act outlines the procedures and standards for determining, modifying, or revising tariffs, ensuring that
these reflect actual costs incurred in power generation, transmission,
and distribution. The Tariff Rules provide a structured mechanism for
tariff petitions, allowing licensees, consumers, and stakeholders to
seek tariff determinations, adjustments, or reviews. NEPRA's tariff-
setting process is guided by the principle of prudent cost recovery,
ensuring that all justified expenses incurred by licensees to meet
consumer needs are recoverable through tariffs.
13. On the other hand, section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act (now
repealed) authorizes the Federal Government to impose a surcharge
on the electricity against the distribution company required to be
notified. The surcharge is typically imposed on electricity consumers
through their bills. Given that surcharge is not defined under the
NEPRA Act; however, the Apex Court in the case of Gadoon Textile
Mills,
1 has very elaborately explained the meaning and scope of a
surcharge. In the case of Gadoon Textile Mills' (supra), the Apex Court
was dealing with the legality of a surcharge imposed by the Federal
Government in order to meet its requirement of payment of Rs. 2
billion to the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Apex Court,
while approving the said levy, has observed that:
"40. After having gone through the record, we are of the view that
surcharge and additional surcharge are in substance part of
electricity tariff and are not taxes. The use of the above words or
use of word "levy" will not change the nature of the charge, the
same is to be ascertained on the basis of the facts as a whole and
attending circumstances. The above view which we are inclined
to take is in consonance with the aforementioned cases. In the
case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala (supra), though in
sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 2 of the Finance Act, 1964,
which related to the imposition of income-tax, no reference was
made to the surcharge but the Indian Supreme Court held that
surcharge in fact is a part of the income-tax and, therefore, is
covered by the above provision of the Act. Whereas in the case
of M/s. Bisra Stone Lime Co. Ltd. (ibid), which is directly
applicable on all fours to the case in hand, it is held that a
surcharge is a super-added charge, a charge over and above the
usual or current dues, it is in substance an addition to the
stipulated rates of tariff. It has been further held that the
nomenclature, therefore, does not alter the above position and it
is an enhancement of the rates of electricity by way of surcharge
which was within the power of the Board to fix or to revise the
rates of tariff. Reliance was placed in the above report on its
earlier judgment, namely, Titagarh's case (1975) 2 SCC 436), in which it was held that the effect of levy of coal surcharge would
be to enhance the rates for the supply of electricity stipulated
under the agreement. It was also held that the surcharge is
appended to a tariff, it partakes of the character of tariff.
Whereas in the third case, namely, The Treasurer of Charitable
Endowment for Pakistan (supra), it has been held that though
section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act refers to imposition
of central excise duty but flood relief surcharge was in fact part
of the central excise duty.
41. It may be mentioned that the surcharge was kept in a separate
account as the intention was to generate rupees two billion out
of the liability of rupees 6.1 billion towards the payment of net
profits under clause (2) of Article 161 of the Constitution to
N.W.F.P. as per aforesaid P.O. No.3 of 1991 on account of hydro-
electric stations situated in the said Province. The above item of
net profits is admittedly part of operation expenses and,
therefore, could have been part of tariff. Whereas the additional
surcharge was kept in a separate account as it was intended to
be used for discharging certain liabilities of WAPDA and also
facilitating the fulfilment of covenant 4.02 of the project
agreement dated February, 1990, with the World Bank, namely,
to generate not less than 40 % of the annual average of WAPDA's
capital expenditure (at page 115 of the WAPDA's documents file
marked part-I filed in Civil Appeals Nos.72 to 80 of 1996). The
above item could also be included as a part of admissible
expenses for determining tariff provided the same did not go
beyond the figure of reasonable return on the investment as a
whole. It may be pointed out that keeping surcharge or
additional surcharge in a separate account for a specific purpose
is not a foreign element. It is not uncommon to have separate
accounts for surcharge and additional surcharge for specific
purpose as pointed out in the case of C.I.T. v. Ernakulam (ibid).
In this regard, reference may also be made to the judgment of
this Court in the case of Suhail Jute Mills Ltd. and another v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance
and others (PLD 1991 SC 329), in which this Court, while
maintaining the levy of surcharge and Iqra surcharge as a part
of customs duty, has pointed out that distinct names are given
for the purpose of being dealt with. In this regard it may be
instructive to reproduce para. 20 of the above judgment, which
reads as under:
"20. It has already been pointed out while examining the nature of
imposition and levy, that it is basically customs duty, that it is
additional to all other customs duties, that in one case it is distinguished by the name of 'Surcharge', in the other by the
name of ' Iqra Surcharge' and that under section 18 of the
Customs Act it is assimilated for the purpose of being dealt with,
so far as the machinery provisions requirements are concerned,
by the Customs Act, the Officers and authorities dealing with it
were fully authorised to deal with it."
14. No doubt NEPRA does not determine the surcharge; however, it
is a statutory function of the Federal Government to impose the levy,
which later becomes part of the tariff. Therefore, as held by the Apex
Court in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills (supra), it cannot be treated
as tax. At this juncture, we will take the first objection of the petitioner
that since section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act was introduced through
Finance Act, 2008, therefore, it is constitutionally invalid legislation.
We need not to delve in the legal discussion as to whether surcharge
could be imposed through Finance Act or otherwise because, through
section 51 of the NEPRA Act, the said levy through section 31(5) ibid
was validated. The vires of section 51 of the NEPRA Act is not before
us. Indeed, it is settled law that, while examining the constitutionality
of a statute, a court must exercise restraint, and efforts should be
made to save the statute instead of destroying it.
2 A similar issue arose
before the Apex Court in the case of Khurshid Soap,3 wherein the Apex
Court was dealing with the legality of Gas Infrastructure Development
Cess Act, 2015 ("Act of 2015"), which, inter alia, was an Act being re-
enacted pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Durrani Ceramics,
4 holding the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess
Act, 2011 ultra vires to the Constitution having been passed through a
money bill. The Act of 2015 retrospectively validated the levy of a
cess/fee. The Apex Court, in the case of Khurshid Soap (supra), has
approved the said validation by observing that:
"28. Keeping in mind the above legal infirmity with which the
legislative process suffered in the legislation of GIDC Act, 2011
which led this Court in Durrani Ceramics' Case to declare it
invalid, the legislature introduced the bill of GIDC Act, 2015
under Article 70 of the Constitution which was passed by both
the houses of the Parliament as a fee-levying enactment. By
recasting the GIDC Act, 2015 as a fee-levying instead of tax-
levying enactment the constitutional requirements that lacked
in the GIDC Act, 2011 were met. This Court in several cases has
recognized the right of the legislature to re-enact a law on the
same subject, which on account of legal infirmities in its
enactment process had been declared invalid by a Court of law,
by removing the causes that led to its invalidity. The legislature
is also competent to make the re-enacted law applicable retrospectively in order to bind even the past transactions that
had been declared invalid. In the case of Molasses Trading and
Export (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (1993 SCMR 1905)
this Court at page 1920 held as follows:-
"Before considering this question it would be appropriate to make
certain general observations with regard to the power of
validation possessed by the legislature in the domain of taxing
statute. It has been held that when a legislature intend to
validate a tax declared by a Court to be illegally collected under
an invalid law, the cause for ineffectiveness or invalidity must
be removed before the validation can be said to take place
effectively. It will not be sufficient merely to pronounce in the
statute by means of a non-obstante clause that the decision of
the Court shall not bind the authority, because that will amount
to reversing a judicial decision rendered in exercise of the
judicial power, which is not within the domain of the
Legislature. It is therefore necessary that the conditions on
which the decision of the Court intended to be avoided is based,
must be altered so fundamentally, that the decision would not
any longer be applicable to the altered circumstances. One of the
accepted modes of achieving this object by the Legislature is to
re-enact retrospectively a valid and legal taxing provision, and
adopting the fiction to make the tax already collected to stand
under the re-enacted law. The Legislature can even give its own
meaning and interpretation of the law under which the tax was
collected and by 'legislative fiat' make the new meaning biding
upon Court. It is in one of these ways that the Legislature can
neutralize the earlier decision of the Court. The Legislature has
within the bound of the Constitutional Limitation the power to
make such a law and give it retrospective effect so as to bind
even past transaction. In ultimate analysis therefore a primary
test of validating piece of legislation is whether the new
provision removes the defect, which the Court had found in the
existing law, and whether adequate provisions in the validating
law for a valid imposition of tax were made."
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, it becomes evident that the
legislative competence of the Parliament to validate a levy
retrospectively, particularly where procedural or constitutional
infirmities have been identified by a court, has consistently been
upheld, provided that the defect in the original enactment is
effectively addressed through substantive legislative measures. The
mechanism of re-enactment or retrospective validation has been
judicially recognized as a legitimate tool of legislative correction,
enabling the State to preserve fiscal measures and statutory levies that may otherwise fall due to procedural lapses. In the present case,
although section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act was introduced through the
Finance Act, 2008, the subsequent validation of 31(5) and all acts and
notifications under the same through section 51 of the NEPRA Act
reflects the express legislative intent to cure any legal defect and
affirm the continued enforceability of the surcharge. It is also a well-
settled principle that when the vires of a validating provision is not
under challenge, a strong presumption of constitutionality attaches to
such enactment. Therefore, in the light of the settled jurisprudence on
legislative validation and in the absence of any direct challenge to
section 51, the argument that the surcharge is constitutionally invalid
due to its initial mode of introduction does not hold any ground.
Accordingly, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is found to be untenable and is hereby overruled.
So far as the impugned notifications are concerned, it is no body's
case that the imposition of surcharge is either confiscatory or the
quantum of levy is unreasonable. The challenge is on only legal
grounds. Therefore, we have no occasion to interfere.
(ii) Whether the imposition of the impugned surcharge by the
Federal Government, without recourse to the Council of
Common Interests (CCI under Article 154 of the Constitution,
violates the constitutional scheme, particularly in view of
electricity being a subject in Part II of the Federal Legislative
List?
16. Moving on further to the second objection of the learned counsel
for the petitioners, that the impugned surcharge was levied by the
Federal Government without resorting to the Council of Common
Interest (CCI) in terms of Article 154 of the Constitution, as electricity
falls under Part II of the Federal Legislative List. There is no cavil to
the mandate of CCI as provided under Article 154 of the Constitution
that it shall formulate and regulate policies related to matters in Part
II of the Federal Legislative List. However, the Powers of parliament to
legislate on any matter falling in Part II of the Federal Legislative List
without a policy of CCI in that field is quite independent. In the case of
Gadoon Textile Mills (supra), the imposition of a surcharge without
having a policy decision from CCI was approved by the Apex Court,
and it was observed that:
"30. Indeed in the case of Sharaf Faridi (supra), the High Court of
Sindh has construed the expression "the supervision and control
over the subordinate judiciary" used in Article 203 of the
Constitution as exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and
effective in operation. This was construed as such while keeping in view Article 175 of the Constitution, which mandated that the
Judiciary shall be separated from the Executive within the
period specified therein, which period in fact had expired. In
this view of the matter, the above report is of no help for
construing the above words used in clause (1) of Article 154 of
the Constitution. Nor the other reports referred to hereinabove
can be pressed into service as the words "regulate" and "control"
have been construed therein with reference to the context in
which they are employed in the relevant provisions of the
statutes. The latter point has been dilated upon hereinafter in
detail.
It may be observed that the words "formulate", "regulate", "policy"
"control" and "supervise" employed in clause (1) of Article 154 of
the Constitution carry wide connotations. The word "formulate"
inter alia carries the meaning, set forth, reduce to a formula;
whereas the word "regulate" inter alia connotes control, subject
to guidance. The word "policy" inter alia carries meaning, as the
general principles by which a Government is guided in its
management of public affairs. The word "control" inter alia
connotes, to regulate or guiding or restraining power over;
whereas the word "supervise" inter alia carries the meaning, to
look over and to inspect. The above words cannot be construed
in isolation, but the same are to be construed in the context in
which they are employed. In other words, their colour and
contents are to be derived from their context. PLD 1996 SC 324 at
page 429, para.23 (Al-Jehad Trust case). Applying the above
principle to the case in hand, we are of the opinion that C.C.I. is
not required to make decision as to the day to day working of
the Corporations mentioned in Part II of the Federal Legislative
List and of the related institutions. It is supposed to formulate
and regulate general policy matters as to their working, which
may include general policy for the working of WAPDA. It may
even include a guideline for fixation of tariff by WAPDA but
such guideline cannot be inconsistent with subsection (2) of
section 25 of the Act, which lays down statutory parameters for
fixation of tariff. In our view, the C.C.I. is not required to
determine tariff for the supply of electricity by WAPDA to the
consumers and to vary the same from time to time as this comes
within the ambit of day to day working. It may be pointed out
that fixation of tariff of electricity depends on various factors,
which regularly and frequently fluctuate warranting revision of
tariff from time to time. It may further be observed that there
are a number of other Corporations and related institutions
under the administrative control of the Federal Government, which deal with manufacture and also of various
goods/machinery. Can it be urged that it is mandatory that C.C.I.
should fix the prices of the above items from time to time The
composition of C.C.I., which comprises Chief Ministers of the
four Federating Units and four nominees of the Federal
Government, which generally includes the Prime Minister as
stated above, militates against taking of above exercise which if
taken in respect of all the Corporations and related institutions
referred to in Article 154 (1), will be a full time job, the Prime
Minister and the Chief Ministers instead of running the
Federation and the Federating Units will mostly be busy in the
above exercise. The requirement under rule 5 of the Rules I of
Procedure of C.C.I, to summon a meeting at least once in a year
also lends support to the above view, which we are inclined to
take."
Therefore, the objections raised by the petitioners are answered in
negative.
(iii) Whether the delegation of power to impose surcharges under
Section 31(8) constitutes excessive delegation?
17. It is the contention of the learned counsel(s) representing the
petitioner that, through Section 31(8) of the NEPRA Act, the parliament
has delegated to the Federal Government (Executive) the essential
legislative function, which is impermissible under the constitutional
scheme. It was argued by the learned counsel(s) for the petitioner that
determination of quantum of surcharge cannot be delegated to the
executive being the essential function of the parliament. Our
Constitution is based on the principle of trichotomy of powers; the
legislature makes the laws, the executive execute it, while the
judicature is entrusted with the duty to interpret it. The Constitution
identifies and explains the authority of the Parliament to exclusively
make laws with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List
and all such matters pertaining to such areas in the Federation as are
not included in any Province.
5 Article 77 of the Constitution expressly
provides that no tax shall be levied for the purposes of the Federation
except by or under the authority of Act of Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament). Therefore, it is settled that levy of tax for the purpose of
Federation is not permissible except by or under the authority of Act of
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). Such legislative powers could not be
delegated to the executive authorities; parliament alone, and not the
government/executive, is empowered to levy tax. Delegation of such
powers to the government/executive was for the purpose of implementation of such laws which is to be done by framing rules or
issuing notification etc.
6
18. On the theory of excessive delegation, the Honorable Supreme
Court of Pakistan in the case of Pakistan Tobacco Company has held
as:7
"21 .. Considering the case in hand from these angles, it is important
to trace out the principles, governing the delegation of powers
by the legislature to executives. There is consensus of the
judicial opinion that delegation of powers should not be
uncontrolled and unbridled and to check the arbitrary attitude
of the executive in exercise of powers, the Legislature must
provide some guidelines basing on the policy of the Government
to exercise such powers. Reference in this behalf may be made
to the case of P.N. Kaushal and others v. Union of India and
others (AIR 1978 SC 1457). Relevant para. wherefrom is read as
under thus:--
"This is why the principle of excessive delegation, that is to say, the
making over by the Legislature of the essential principles of
legislation to another body becomes relevant in the present
debate. Under our Constitutional scheme the Legislature must
retain its own hands the essential legislative functions. Exactly
what constitutes the essential legislative functions is difficult to
define;
The Legislature must retain in its own hands the essential legislative
function. Exactly what constituted 'essential legislative function',
was difficult to define in general terms, but this much was clear
that the essential legislative function must at least consist of the
determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a
binding rule of conduct. Thus, where the law passed by the
Legislature declares the legislative policy and lays down the
standard which is enacted into a rule of law it can leave the task
of subordinate legislation which by its very nature is ancillary to
the status to subordinate bodies, i.e., the making of rules,
regulations of bye-laws. The subordinate authority must do so
within the framework of the law, subordinate legislation has to
be consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go
beyond the limits of the policy and standard laid down in the
law provided the legislative policy is enunciated with sufficient
clearness or a standard is laid down the Courts should not
interfere with the discretion that 'undoubtedly rests with the Legislature itself in determining the extent of delegation
necessary in a particular case.
In Vasanthlal Manganbhai Sajanwal v. The State of Bombay, 1961
SCR 341: (AIR 1961 SC 4) the above proposition was summarized
in following words:-
"A statute challenged on the ground of excessive delegation must
therefore, be subject to two tests, (1) whether it delegates
essential legislative function or power, and (2) whether the
Legislature has enunciated its policy and principle for the
guidance of the delegate."
Likewise a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore in
the case of Muhammad Aslam and others v. Punjab Government
and others (1996 MLD 685) following the judgments from our
own jurisdiction in the cases reported in PLD 1958 SC 41, PLD
1965 Dacca 156, PLD 1966 SC 854, PLD 1988 SC 416 has held that
naked, unbridled and unguided powers cannot be conferred
upon the outside agency like executive."
19. Let us examine section 31(8) of the NEPRA Act on the basis of the
aforesaid principle of law. A critical aspect of section 31(8) of the
NEPRA Act is its clear articulation of the utilization of surcharge
revenue. The provision mandates that surcharge revenue may only be
used for two specified purposes. Firstly, it allows for the funding of
public sector projects deemed to be of public importance, with the
extent of such funding determined by the Federal Government. This
grants the government the discretion to allocate surcharge revenue
based on national priorities and developmental needs. Secondly, it
provides for the fulfillment of financial obligations related to
electricity services, including payments for power purchases and
obligations secured through sovereign guarantees. This ensures that
the surcharge mechanism is directly linked to sustaining and
improving the power sector's financial stability and operational
efficiency. Therefore, the imposition of surcharge lacks the essential
attributes of a tax as settled by the Apex Court in the case of Gadoon
Textile Mills (supra) that imposition of surcharge is not a tax, but is
part of tariff determined by the Executive. The said principle is equally
attracted to the power of the Federal Government while exercising its
statutory mandate pursuant to section 31(8). This being the position,
the imposition of a surcharge does not constitute a legislative function
of the Parliament in the same manner as the imposition of taxes under
Article 77 of the Constitution. Rather, it attracts all the attributes of a
fee. We are also fortified by the ratio laid down in Gadoon Textile Mills
(supra) approving the imposition of surcharge under the delegated powers by the Executive/Authority pursuant to section 25(2) of the
WAPDA Act, 1958. In our considered view, this plea of the petitioners
that the imposition of surcharge by the Federal Government pursuant
to section 31(8) being excessive delegation, is not tenable.
(iv) Whether Section 31(8) confers unfettered and unchecked
authority upon the Federal Government, enabling the imposition
of surcharges for any public sector project, thereby necessitating
judicial scrutiny under the doctrines of "reading down" and
"reading in" to preserve the constitutionality of the provision?
20. The petitioners have vehemently argued that the newly
introduced subsection (8) of Section 31 of the NEPRA Act grants
unbridled and unchecked authority to the Federal Government to
impose a surcharge on various pretexts. They contend that the
legislature has left the purpose of this imposition open-ended,
effectively delegating excessive taxation powers to the executive.
Moreover, paragraph (a) of subsection (8) employs the broad phrase
"public sector project of public importance," which lacks precise
definition and could encompass virtually any public initiative,
rendering the provision susceptible to arbitrary interpretation.
Consequently, the petitioners assert that this provision is liable to be
struck down or at least read down. These assertions of the learned
counsel for the petitioners carries weight and requires consideration.
Clause (a) of proviso to subsection (8) of section 31 of the NEPRA Act
confers upon the Federal Government unstructured, unbridled and
vast powers to levy and notify surcharge for any public sector project
irrespective of its co-relation with energy sector albeit the essential
legislative function to fix and determine the amount of surcharge.
Therefore, if the said authority remains unstructured, it might be
exercised by the Federal Government by imposing surcharge on
electricity consumers for any project beyond the power sector.
21. We are mindful that Section 31(8) of the NEPRA Act grants
unchecked powers to the Federal Government and by interpreting it
broadly, any project of public sector could be included for the purpose
of levying surcharge. Athar Minallah, J, while speaking for the court in
the case of Shahtaj Sugar Mills,
8 has very aptly explained the theory of
legislative instrument which could be used discriminately whether
would be a ground for striking the same law. The Honorable Judge has
observed that:
"The burden to prove that the promulgated law is invalid is on the
person who challenges its vires. Based on the said rule, this
Court has enunciated the principle that law should be saved
rather than be destroyed and that courts must lean in favour of upholding the constitutionality of legislation. The function of
legislation is the exclusive prerogative of the legislature. The
wisdom of the legislature to promulgate a law and to achieve a
particular object and purpose cannot be questioned and,
therefore, it is presumed that laws have been legally, validly and
constitutionally promulgated on the basis of its competence. The
courts have no jurisdiction or power to rewrite the laws and the
Constitution. The promulgated laws or its provisions cannot be
struck down lightly and it is the duty of the courts to make every
possible effort to reconcile the statute to the Constitution and to
strike it down when it becomes impossible to do so. The courts
are not empowered to strike down a law or its provision on
higher ethical notions or on the basis of philosophical concepts
and no mala fide can be attributed to the legislature. It is the
duty of the courts to give effect to the scheme of representative
governance of the State which is the foundation and the edifice
of the Constitution is built on it. This Court has, therefore, laid
down stringent and narrow grounds in the context of striking
down a law or a provision while exercising the power of judicial
review. In Ms. Imrana Tiwana's case this Court, after surveying
its jurisprudence, has summarised the grounds for striking
down a law and they are as follows;
(i) There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality and a law
must not be declared unconstitutional unless the statute is placed next to the Constitution and no way can be found in
reconciling the two;
(ii) Where more than one interpretation is possible, one of which
would make the law valid and the other void, the Court must
prefer the interpretation which favours validity;
(iii) A statute must never be declared unconstitutional unless its
invalidity is beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must
be resolved in favour of the statute being valid;
(iv) If a case can be decided on other or narrower grounds, the
Court will abstain from deciding the constitutional question;
(v) The Court will not decide a larger constitutional question than is
necessary for the determination of the case;
(vi) The Court will not declare a statute unconstitutional on the
ground that it violates the spirit of the Constitution unless it also
violates the letter of the Constitution;
(vii) The Court is not concerned with the wisdom or prudence of the
legislation but only with its constitutionality;
(viii) The Court will not strike down statutes on principles of
republican or democratic government unless those principles
are placed beyond legislative encroachment by the Constitution.
(ix) Mala fides will not be attributed to the Legislature."
The Honorable Judge has further observed that:
"This Court, in Shaukat Ali Mian's case has drawn a distinction
between a provision of a statute which may be ex facie
discriminatory and the provisions which may be capable of
pressing into service in an arbitrary and illegal manner. This
Court has held that in case of the latter eventuality, the
provisions cannot be struck down on the ground that it is
capable of being used in a discriminatory manner. Any action
taken pursuant to powers delegated under a provision will
obviously be subject to the judicial review of the courts."
22. It is equally settled when open ended or close ended legislative
provisions comes for scrutiny before the Courts, the same may be
examined while applying the principles of "reading in" and "reading
down," and the Court must exercise restrains to save the statute instead of destroying it. The appropriate course would be to interpret
the statute in such a manner to align it with its object and purpose.
23. The principles of "reading down" and "reading in" serve as
essential tools in statutory interpretation, allowing courts to uphold
legislative intent while ensuring conformity with constitutional
mandates. "Reading down" is employed to preserve the validity of a
statute by construing its provisions in a manner that aligns with
constitutional principles, thus preventing the need for striking down
the legislation. This approach is particularly useful when a provision
appears overly broad or ambiguous but can be interpreted in a
restricted manner to maintain its legality and effectiveness. Courts
apply this principle to avoid declaring statutes unconstitutional unless
absolutely necessary, favoring an interpretation that keeps the law
functional within the permissible legal framework. Conversely,
"reading in" is used when a legislative omission results in ambiguity or
unintended consequences. In such cases, courts may infer and
incorporate language that aligns with the legislative intent while
ensuring that the statute remains coherent and effective. This
principle is applied cautiously, ensuring that judicial intervention does
not amount to unauthorized legislation but rather serves to give effect
to the true purpose of the law. The Supreme Court of Canada,
particularly in Schacter v. Canada [1992] 2 SCR 679, has developed
jurisprudence on "reading in" as a constitutional remedy to correct
legislative defects without striking down the entire provision. The
principle is only applied in the clearest of cases where legislative
intent is obvious and the remedy does not encroach upon the
legislative domain.
9
24. Both principles reflect a balance between judicial restraint and
the necessity of preserving the integrity of legislative enactments,
reinforcing the role of courts in harmonizing statutory provisions with
overarching constitutional and legal principles. The rule of "reading
down" ensures that statutes and subordinate legislation are
interpreted in a manner that aligns them with the broader legal
framework, thereby upholding legislative wisdom and avoiding
unnecessary invalidation of laws. Similarly, "reading in" is an
interpretative tool that allows courts to correct constitutional
imbalances resulting from legislative omissions, particularly when
such omissions could undermine the very intent behind a
constitutional amendment or statutory provision. The Supreme Court
of Pakistan in the case of M.Q.M. emphasized that reading down is
applied to preserve a statute's functionality while ensuring it remains
within legislative competence.
10 Similarly, in the case of Arshad
Mehmood, it was held that courts assume the legislature does not intend to exceed its authority, and provisions should be construed to
avoid constitutional violations.
11 Moreover, in the case of Syed
Mukhtar Hussain Shah, the "reading in" principle was recognized as a
method to supplement statutory language where necessary to achieve
legislative intent.
12 The principles of "reading down" and "reading up"
are elaborated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sundew
Properties Limited, and held as follow:
13
"30. Reading down and reading up are two principles often
discussed in legal contexts, particularly in the realm of statutory
interpretation. Reading down, which has been firmly ingrained
in our jurisprudence, refers to the practice of interpreting a
statute narrowly, limiting its scope or application to specific
situations or individuals. This approach is commonly employed
when the language of a statute is ambiguous or when there is a
need to avoid potential conflicts with other laws or
constitutional provisions. For example, if a law is unclear about
whether it applies to certain types of businesses, a court may
choose to read down the statute to only include those businesses
explicitly mentioned in the text. On the other hand, reading up
involves interpreting a statute broadly, extending its scope or
application beyond what is expressly stated in the text. Reading
up is a concept that is invoked with great caution within our
legal framework because it can lead to judicial activism or
judicial overreach, where courts expand the reach of laws
beyond what the legislature intended."
25. According to Dr. Avtar Singh and Dr. Harpreet Kaur's
Introduction to the Interpretation of Statutes (Third Edition, 2009, pp.
238, 239), the interpretive principle of reading down aims to
harmonize a particular provision with the scheme, purpose and object
of the statute. They elaborated this concept as follow:
"... The principle of reading down, however, will not be available.
Where the plain and literal meaning from a bare reading of any
impugned provisions clearly shows that it confers arbitrary,
unanalyzed or unbridled powers. The rule of reading down a
provision of law is a rule of harmonious construction in a
different name. It is resorted to smoothen the crudities or
ironing out the creases found in a statute to make it workable.
However, in the garb of reading down it is not open to read
words and expressions not found in it and thus venture into a
kind of judicial legislation. The rule of reading down is to be
used for the limited purpose of making a particular provision
workable and to bring it in harmony with the other provisions of the statute. It is to be used keeping in view the scheme of the
statute and to fulfill its purposes.
Reading down a provision is an accepted principle of interpretation
so as to sustain the provision as well as to effectuate the purpose
of the statute. But this provision cannot be invoked where
express provision itself negates the same. It has been held that a
provision found to be constitutional cannot be read down..."
26. The principle of "reading down" is a well-established rule of
statutory interpretation, applied to uphold the constitutionality and
functional integrity of a statute while ensuring that no provision
operates beyond the legislature's intent. Courts have consistently held
that where a provision is susceptible to multiple interpretations, the
one that aligns with the statutory framework should be preferred to
avoid inconsistency.
14 Applying this principle, Clause (a) of subsection
(8) of Section 31 of the NEPRA Act must be read down to mean that the
surcharge can only be levied for public sector projects specifically
related to the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity.
Such an interpretation is necessary to bring the provision in harmony
with the rest of the Act and to prevent arbitrary or excessive financial
impositions on electricity consumers. If we allow its applications at the
whims of Executive, we are afraid that if the levy is imposed for
funding any project beyond the power sector the same would be
contrary essential attributes of a fee i.e. quid pro quo.
27. Moreover, the financial structure of the electricity sector is
heavily regulated under the NEPRA Act, with NEPRA playing a central
role in tariff determination and adjustments. If the surcharge
mechanism is left undefined, it would create a bypass mechanism,
allowing the executive to impose financial burdens on consumers
without the structured oversight required under the NEPRA Act. This
undermines the fundamental regulatory safeguards embedded within
the NEPRA Act and contradicts its objective of ensuring a transparent
and balanced electricity market.
D. Findings of the Court
28. In light of the foregoing analysis, it is evident that Clause (a) of
subsection (8) of Section 31, in its current form, grants excessive
discretion to the executive and is inconsistent with the object and
purpose of the NEPRA Act. Therefore, this provision must be read
down to restrict its application solely to public sector projects that
directly pertain to the generation, transmission, and distribution of
electricity. Accordingly, it is directed that the Federal Government, in
exercising its power under subsection (8), shall ensure that any
surcharge levied is strictly confined to projects within the electricity
sector. Furthermore, any imposition of surcharges beyond this scope
shall be deemed ultra vires the NEPRA Act. The relevant authorities
are advised to review and amend the provision to explicitly reflect this limitation, ensuring compliance with the statutory framework
governing the power sector.
29. In view of the above, the instant petition and the connected petitions in Schedule "A" and "B" stand disposed of.
Schedule A
S.No. Case Number and Title
1 W.P. No. 3827-P/2014 "Messrs Cresent Textile (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. NEPRA and others."
2. W.P. No. 3860-P/2014 "All Pakistan Textile Mills
Association (APTMA) and others v. The Federation of
Pakistan and others."
3 W.P. No. 3877-P/2014 "Sawat Ceramics Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."
4. W.P. No. 3879-P/2014 "The Premier, Sugar Mills and
Distillery Co Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan."
5. W.P. No. 3881-P/2014 "Messrs Associated Industries
(Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others."
6. W.P. No. 3883-P/2014 "Brightex Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."
7 W.P. No. 3884-P/2014 "Kohat Cement Co. Ltd. v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others."
8. W.P. No. 3886-P/2014 "Cherat Cement Co. Ltd. v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others
9. W.P. No. 3889-P/2014 "Askari Cement Ltd. v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others."
10. W.P. No. 210-P/ 15 "AK Tariq Foundry and others v.
The Federation of Pakistan and others"
11. W.P. No. 211-P/2015 "Messrs Syntron Ltd. v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others."
12. W.P. No. 311-P/2015 "Messrs Cherat Packaging Ltd. v.
The Federation of Pakistan and others."
13. W.P. No. 313-P/2015 "Hattar Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
The Federation of Pakistan and others."
14. W.P. No. 315/2015 "MKB Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited
and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"
15. W.P. No. 350-P/2015 "Swabi Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
The Federation of Pakistan and others"
16. W.P. No. 515-P/2015 "Muhammad Daud Steel Industry
v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"
17. W.P. No. 529-P/2015 "Messrs Sher Steel Furnace and
Re-Rolling Mills v. The Federation of Pakistan and
others"
18. W.P. No. 530-P/2015 "Imperial Electronics Lighting
(Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan
and others" S.No. Case Number and Title
19. W.P. No. 545-P/2015 "Khyber Match Factory (Pvt.) Ltd.
and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"
20. W.P. No. 1102-P/2015 "Messrs Ali Steel Furnace v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others"
21. W.P. No. 1404-P/2015 "Myka Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others"
22. W.P. No. 1821-P/2015 "Gul Badshah Steel Furnace v.
The Federation of Pakistan and others"
23. W.P. No. 1822-P/2015 "Al Haj Foundry v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others"
24. W.P. No. 1863-P/2015 "Gul Min Shah Steel Foundry v.
The Federation of Pakistan and others"
25. W.P. No. 1865-P/2015 "ARY Steel Industries v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others"
26. W.P. No. 1973-P/2015 "MS Aziz Cold Storage v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others"
27. W.P. No. 1995-P/ 2015 "Messrs Alam Match (Pvt.) Ltd.
v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"
28. W.P. No. 2286-P/2015 "Messrs Tariq Cold Storage v.
The Federation of Pakistan and others"
29. W.P. No. 3248-P/2015 "ARY Steel Industries v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others"
30. W.P. No. 3563-P/2021 "Iftikhar Steel Mills and
Furnace and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and
others"
31. W.P. No. 4381-P/2021 "AG Steel Furnace and another
v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"
32. W.P. No. 4409-P/2021 "Ilahi Steel Furnace and another
v. The Federation of Pakistan"
33. W.P. No. 636-9/2022 "Muhammad Yasir Steel Foundry
v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"
34. W.P. No. 637-P/2022 "My Steel Foundry v. The
Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary
and others "
35. W.P. No. 1670-P/2023 "Messrs New Mohmand Steel
Mills v. National Electric Power Regulatory Authority
and others"
36. W.P. No. 2379-P/2023 "Messrs Ayaz Steel Foundry and
Re-rolling Mill v. NEPRA and others."
37. W.P. No. 2950-P/2023 "Amin Shah Steel and another v.
NEPRA and others."
S.No. Case Number and Title
38. W.P. No. 4270-P/2023 "Messrs Khyber Foundry v.
NEPRA and others."
39 W.P. No. 4525-P/2023 "Zakir Ullah Marble Factory and
another v. NEPRA and others."
40. W.P. No. 6087-P/2023 "Messrs Yar Steel Mills and
another v. NEPRA and others."
41. W.P. No. 6208-P/2023 "Messrs SS. Steel Mills and
another v. NEPRA and others."
42. W.P. No. 6255-P/2023 "Messrs Jadoon Metal Works
(Pvt.) Ltd. v. NEPRA and others."
43. W.P No. 926-P/2024 "Messrs Farhan Steel Industry
and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others."
44. W.P. No. 1944-P/2024 "Messrs Salaar Steel Mills (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. NEPRA and others."
45. W.P. No. 2668-P/2024 "Messrs KPK Steel Mills v.
NEPRA and others"
46. W.P. No. 4008-P/2024 "Messrs Dua Steel Furnace v.
NEPRA and others"
47. W.P. No. 6431-P/2024 "Messrs Haider Steel Furnace v.
NEPRA and others"
48. W.P. No. 576-P/2015 "Royal Foundry v. Pakistan
through Secretary and others."
49. W.P. No. 589-P/2015 "All Pakistan Textile Mills
Association and others v. Pakistan through Secretary
and others."
50. W.P. No. 638-P/2015 "Feroz Sons Laboratories Ltd. v.
The Federation of Pakistan and others."
51. W.P. No. 639-P/2015 "Kohat Cement Company Ltd. and
others v. Federation of Pakistan and others."
52. W.P. No. 640-P/2015 "Chashma Sugar Mills Ltd. and
another v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."
53. W.P. No. 641-P/2015 "Khazana Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.
and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."
54. W.P. No. 642-P/2015 "Hattar Textile Mills and another
v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"
55. W.P. No. 779-P/2015 "Amin Paper Board Mills (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary and others."
56. W.P. No. 820-P/2015 "Frontier Green Wood Industries
(Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan
and others."
57. W.P. No. 821-P/2015 "Cherat Packaging Ltd. v. The S.No. Case Number and Title
Federation of Pakistan and others."
58. W.P. No. 822-P/2015 "Lahore Steel Mills v. Pakistan
through Secretary and others."
59. W.P. No. 828-P/2015 "Messrs Syntron Ltd. v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others."
60. W.P. No. 852-P/2015 "Askari Cement Ltd. v. The
Federation of Pakistan and others.
61. W.P. No. 911-P/2015 "Swabi Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.
and others v. Pakistan through Secretary and others"
62. W.P. No. 913-P/2015 "Messrs Mohsin Enterprises (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others."
63. W.P. No. 915-P/2015 "Messrs Premier Chipboard
Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and
others."
64. W.P. No. 916-P/2015 "Messrs Premier Formica
Industries Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and
others."
65. W.P. No. 966-P/2015 "Popular Juice Industries (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary and others."
66. W.P. No.3893-P/2014 "All Pakistan CNG Association
and others v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of
Water and Power, Islamabad and others"
Schedule B
S. No. Case Number and Title
1. W.P. No. 3225-P/2024 "Messrs HBK Steel Mills v.
NEPRA and others."
2. W.P. No. 4248-P/2024 "Khan Wazirs/O Nazeer Khan v.
The Government of Pakistan and others."
3. W.P. No. 23-P/2025 "Messrs Iqbal Brothers Steel
Furnace v. NEPRA and others."
MH/60/P Order accordingly
Comments
Post a Comment