W.P No.2972/2011 Page 1 of 67

JUDGMENT SHEET.

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

1. Writ Petition No. 2972- 2011 M/S Karachi Steel Mills, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

2. Writ Petition No. 3168-2011 M/S Shandar CNG , etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

3. Writ Petition No. 3208 of 2011 Malik Associates CNG Vs. Fed. Of Pakistan, etc.

4. Writ Petition No. 3235 of 2011 M/S Best Way Cement Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan etc.

5. Writ Petition No. 3243 of 2011 M/S All Pakistan CNG Association Vs. Govt. of Pakistan,

6. Writ Petition No. 3366 of 2011 Barrister Abu Bakar Sehri, etc. Vs. NEPRA, etc.

7. Writ Petition No. 3422 of 2011 M/S Ellahi Cotton Mills Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

8. Writ Petition No. 3453 of 2011 M/S Insaf Steel Re-Rolling . Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.

9. Writ Petition No. 3480 of 2011 M/S Taxila Cotton Mills etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

10. Writ Petition No. 127 of 2012 M/S J-R Steel Re-Rolling Mills. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc

11. Writ Petition No. 164 of 2012 M/S Cherat Cement Company Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

12. Writ Petition No. 165 of 2012 Kohat Cement Company. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

13. Writ Petition No. 166 of 2012 M/S Mujahid Enterprises, etc. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

14. Writ Petition No. 212 of 2012. M/S Hattar Steel RE-Rolling Mills. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

15. Writ Petition No. 499 of 2012. M/s Al-Hadeed Industries . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

16. Writ Petition No. 501 of 2012. Northern Bottling Company . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc

17. Writ Petition No. 519 of 2012. M/s Syntronics Ltd . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc

18. Writ Petition No. 530 of 2012. M/s Best way Cement Ltd. . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc

19. Writ Petition No. 650 of 2012. Sitara Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

20. Writ Petition No. 651 of 2012. M/s Al-Hadeed Industries . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc

21. Writ Petition No. 714 of 2012. M/sAl. Hamid Corporation Ltd. . Vs. Wapda, etc

22. Writ Petition No. 715 of 2012. M/s Fecto Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

23. Writ Petition No. 718 of 2012. Service Industries. Vs. Wapda, etc

24. Writ Petition No. 722 of 2012. M/s Kohinoor Mills . Vs. Wapda, etc

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 2 of 67

25. Writ Petition No. 723 of 2012. M/s Kohinoor Mills . Vs. Wapda, etc

26. Writ Petition No. 724 of 2012. Mapple Leaf Cement Ltd. vs. Wapda, etc.

27. Writ Petition No. 727 of 2012. Madina Steel Industries Vs. Wapda, etc.

28. Writ Petition No. 728 of 2012. Service Industries . Vs. Wapda, etc.

29. Writ Petition No. 729 of 2012. Bismah Textile Mills . Vs. Wapda, etc.

30. Writ petition No. 730 of 2012 DG Khan Cement Company Vs. Wapda, etc.

31. Writ Petition No. 732 of 2012. M/S Shan Steel. Vs. Wapda, etc.

32. Writ Petition No. 735 of 2012. Fawad Textile Mills. Vs. Wapda, etc.

33. Writ Petition No. 736 of 2012. Hussain Mills, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

34. Writ Petition No. 742 of 2012. M/s Delhi Muslim Ice Factory. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc. .

35. Writ Petition No. 748 of 2012. Fatima Enterprises etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

36. Writ Petition No. 756 of 2012 M/S HAR Textile Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

37. Writ Petition No. 764 of 2012. M/S Pioneer Cement Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

38. Writ Petition No. 765 of 2012. M/S Flying Cement Company Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc.

39. Writ Petition No. 768 of 2012. M/S Premium Textile mills . Vs. Wapda, etc.

40. Writ Petition No. 769 of 2012. Saphire Textile Vs. Wapda, etc.

41. Writ Petition No. 771 of 2012. Hassan Ltd. etc. Vs. Wapda, etc

42. Writ Petition No. 772 of 2012. Thal Ltd.. Vs. Wapda, etc.

43. Writ Petition No. 774 of 2012. New City Steel. Vs. Wapda, etc.

44. Writ Petition No. 775 of 2012. Shoaib Salman Textile Mills Ltd Vs. Fed. Of Pakistan, etc.

45. Writ Petition No. 776 of 2012. Shamsi Textile Industries etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

46. Writ Petition No. 788 of 2012. Reliance Weaving Mills etc.. Vs. Fed. Of Pakistan, etc.

47. Writ Petition No. 789 of 2012. Reliance Weaving Mills Vs. F.O.P, etc.

48. Writ Petition No. 790 of 2012. Kamran Steel Mills, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

49. Writ Petition No. 791 of 2012. Chanar Sugar Mills . Vs. F.O.P, etc. .

50. Writ Petition No. 792 of 2012. Modern Flour Mills. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

51. Writ Petition No. 793of 2012. Al-Harmain Flour Mills. Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

52. Writ Petition No. 798 of 2012. M/S Nadia Steel, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

53. Writ Petition No. 800 of 2012. M/S Techno Fabrics pvt. Ltd. etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

54. Writ Petition No. 801 of 2012. M/S Malik Ice Factory Vs. Wapda, etc.

55. Writ Petition No. 810 of 2012. Fatima Enterprises. Vs. Wapda, etc.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 3 of 67

56. Writ Petition No. 811 of 2012. Allah Wasaya Spinning Mills . Vs. Wapda, etc.

57. Writ Petition No. 812 of 2012. M/S BM Steel Industry. Vs. Wapda, etc.

58. Writ Petition No. 828 of 2012. Kohinoor Spinning Mills Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc.

59. Writ Petition No. 841 of 2012. M/ S Xtreme Thrill Vs. Wapda, etc.

60. Writ Petition No. 842 of 2012. The Monal Restaurant Vs. Wapda, etc.

61. Writ Petition No. 902 of 2012. ACRO Textile Vs. F.O.P etc.

62. Writ Petition No. 727 of 2012. Madina Steel Industries etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

63. Writ Petition No. 903 of 2012. DG Khan Cement. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

64. Writ Petition No. 904 of 2012. Tauqir Steel Mills, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

65. Writ Petition No. 905 of 2012. North Star Textile etc. Vs. F.O.P etc.

66. Writ Petition No. 920 of 2012. Arfeen Industries Pvt. Ltd. . Vs. F.O.P, etc.

67. Writ Petition No. 925 of 2012. M/S A.H Steel, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

68. Writ Petition No. 946 of 2012. M/S Bhimra Textile Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

69. Writ Petition No. 959 of 2012. Shadab Textile Mills. Vs. Wapda, etc.

70. Writ Petition No. 971 of 2012. Gulistan Textile Mills. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

71. Writ Petition No. 972 of 2012. Capital Steel, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc. .

72. Writ Petition No. 973 of 2012. Nishat Mills Ltd. Vs. F.O.P, etc

73. Writ Petition No. 974 of 2012. Rana Aashiq Ali , etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

74. Writ Petition No. 975 of 2012. Muhammad Jamshed Khalid Vs. Wapda, etc.

75. Writ Petition No. 976 of 2012. M/s Kamalia Steel Furnace Vs. Wapda, etc.

76. Writ Petition No. 977 of 2012. Liaqat Steel Industries Vs. Wapda, etc.

77. Writ Petition No. 978 of 2012. M/s Talib Hussain Vs. Wapda, etc.

78. Writ Petition No. 979 of 2012. Mehmood Hussain Haji Maqsood Ali Vs. Wapda, etc.

79. Writ Petition No. 980 of 2012. Sh. Nasim Iqbal Vs. Wapda, etc.

80. Writ Petition No. 981 of 2012. Muhammad Khalid Vs. Wapda, etc.

81. Writ Petition No. 982 of 2012. Siara Textile etc. Vs. F.O.P. etc.

82. Writ Petition No. 983 of 2012. M/s Riaz Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

83. Writ Petition No. 994 of 2012. M/S Malik Board & Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

84. Writ Petition No. 995 of 2012. M/s Sayed paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

85. Writ Petition No. 996 of 2012. M/s Shalimar Steel etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

86. Writ Petition No. 997 of 2012. Asia Spinning Mills Vs. F.O.P, etc. .

87. Writ Petition No. 998 of 2012. Shahpur Textile Vs. Wapda, etc.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 4 of 67

88. Writ Petition No. 999 of 2012. Allahwasaya Textile, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

89. Writ Petition No. 1000 of 2012. Idrees Textile Mills etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

90. Writ Petition No. 10004 of 2012. Ali Haq Spinning Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.

91. Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2012. M/s Atas Paper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

92. Writ Petition No. 1016 of 2012. Mughal Steel etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

93. Writ Petition No. 1017 of 2012. Chakwal Textile, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc. .

94. Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2012. M/S Sarwar Rubber Industry etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

95. Writ Petition No. 1019 of 2012. Hashmi Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

96. Writ Petition No. 1020 of 2012. D.S Industries Ltd., etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

97. Writ Petition No. 1021 of 2012. Abu Bakar Textile Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

98. Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2012. M/S Azam Knit & Dyeing etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

99. Writ Petition No. 1028 of 2012. Al Shafi Steels, etc. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

100. Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2012. Bajaj Spinning Mills etc. . Vs. F.O.P, etc.

101. Writ Petition No. 1033 of 2012. M/S Taj Steel Mills etc.. Vs. Wapda, etc.

102. Writ Petition No. 1034 of 2012. Model Town Co-operative Society Lahore Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.

103. Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2012. M/S Omer Tissue pvt. Ltd. etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

104. Writ Petition No. 1036 of 2012. M/S Sartaj Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

105. Writ Petition No. 1040 of 2012. M/S MLW Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

106. Writ Petition No. 1041 of 2012. Ch. Muhammad Shafique, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

107. Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2012. The Qadri Brothers Pvt. Ltd, . Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.

108. Writ Petition No. 1043 of 2012. The Qureshi Wool Industries. Vs. F.O.P, etc.

109. Writ Petition No. 1044of 2012. M/S Qadri Engineering Pvt. Ltd Vs. F.O.P, etc.

110. Writ Petition No. 1045 Mushtaq Cold Storage, Vs. Wapda, etc.

111. Writ Petition No. 1047 of 2012. M/S Faras Combin Pvt. Ltd etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

112. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2012. Dawood Spinning, etc. Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.

113. Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2012. M/S Zaman Papers & Board Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.

114. Writ Petition No. 1051 of 2012. M/s Muhammad Younis. Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.

115. Writ Petition No. 1054 of 2012. Qutab Textile Mills, etc. Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.

116. Writ Petition No. 1060 of 2012. M/S Anmol Paper Mills. Vs. Wapda, etc.

117. Writ Petition No. 1063 of 2012. M/s Malik Steel Centre Ltd. Vs. Fed. Of Pakistan, etc.

118. Writ Petition No. 1064 of 2012. Queta Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Fed. of Pakistan, etc.

119. Writ Petition No. 1065 of 2012. Khurram steel etc. Vs. FOP.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 5 of 67

120. Writ Petition No. 1068 of 2012. Ravi Textile Mills etc Vs. FOP etc.

121. Writ Petition No. 1070 of 2012. Dandot Cement Co. Vs. Wapda, etc.

122. Writ Petition No. 1071 of 2012. Barkat Textile Mills etc Vs. Wapda, etc.

123. Writ Petition No. 1072 of 2012. Three Star Hosiery Vs. Wapda, etc.

124. Writ Petition No. 1086 of 2012. Waheed Shahzad Plastic works, LHR Vs. Wapda, etc.

125. Writ Petition No. 1087 of 2012. Lessee of Lasani Cold Storage, LHR Vs. Wapda, etc.

126. Writ Petition No. 1090 of 2012. Nabeel Industries Vs. FOP, etc.

127. Writ Petition No. 1092 of 2012. Bhatti Cotton Links Vs. FOP, etc.

128. Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2012. M/s Qadria Board Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.

129. Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2012. M/s Asmy Dyeing & Printing Vs. Wapda, etc.

130. Writ Petition No. 1098 of 2012. M/s Silko Processing Factory Vs. Wapda, etc.

131. Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2012. M/s Hamza Steel etc Vs. Wapda, etc.

132. Writ Petition No. 1102 of 2012. Siddique Engineering etcVs.FOP etc.

133. Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2012. M/s Masif Steel Industries Vs. FOP, etc.

134. Writ Petition No. 1108 of 2012. Haleeb Foods Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

135. Writ Petition No. 1113 of 2012. Mushtaq Ahmed Vs. Wapda, etc.

136. Writ Petition No. 1118 of 2012. Malik Javed, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

137. Writ Petition No. 1123 of 2012. Farooq Spinning Mills etc. Vs. FOP, etc.

138. Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2012. M/S MHA Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc.

139. Writ Petition No. 1143 of 2012. Ali Steel, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

140. Writ Petition No. 1144 of 2012. Taimoor Spinning Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

141. Writ Petition No. 1149 of 2012. M/s Haleem paper Mills, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

142. Writ Petition No. 1159 of 2012. M/S Awan Cotton Waste Factory etc Vs. Wapda, etc.

143. Writ Petition No. 1163 of 2012. Muhammad Saeed, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

144. Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2012. Noor Enterprises etc. Vs. FOP, etc.

145. Writ Petition No. 1169 of 2012. Muhammad Yaqoob, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

146. Writ Petition No. 1175 of 2012. Ghulam Nabi, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

147. Writ Petition No. 1179 of 2012. Ittehad Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

148. Writ Petition No. 1180 of 2012. M/S New Hafiz Steel Furnace Vs. Wapda, etc.

149. Writ Petition No. 1181 of 2012. Fair Deal Weaving Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.

150. Writ Petition No. 1188 of 2012. M/S Reliance Ply Wood Industry Vs. Wapda, etc.

151. Writ Petition No. 1205 of 2012. Hilal Textile Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 6 of 67

152. Writ Petition No. 1221 of 2012. M./S Maqbool Ice Factory etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

153. Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2012. M/S Umer Ishfaq Ice Factory, Cold storage Vs. Wapda, etc.

154. Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2012. Inco Pipe Industry Vs. NEPRA, etc.

155. Writ Petition No. 1245of 2012. Mughal Ittehad Board Vs. FOP,. etc.

156. Writ Petition No. 1248 of 2012. M/S Asad Rice Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.

157. Writ Petition No. 1251 of 2012. Gulistan Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc. .

158. Writ Petition No. 1253 of 2012. M/S Capital Steels Vs. FOP, etc.

159. Writ Petition No. 1328 of 2012. Service Industries Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

160. Writ Petition No. 1329 of 2012. Imperial Textile Mills. Vs. Wapda, etc.

161. Writ Petition No. 1330 of 2012. Colony Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

162. Writ Petition No. 1345 of 2012. M/S Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc.

163. Writ Petition No. 1358 of 2012. M/S Cables & Conductors ltd. Etc. Vs. FOP, etc..

164. Writ Petition No. 1365 of 2012. Afaq Steel Vs. FOP, etc.

165. Writ Petition No. 1366 of 2012. Al-Hamd Corporation Vs. FOP, etc.

166. Writ Petition No. 1367of 2012. Combine Spinning Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc.

167. Writ Petition No. 1368 of 2012. Nishat Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc.

168. Writ Petition No. 1372 of 2012. Ch. Muhammad Shafique . Vs. Wapda, etc

169. Writ Petition No. 1373 of 2012. Al Haq Spinning Mills. Ltd. Etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

170. Writ Petition No. 1378 of 2012. Map Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. . Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, etc.

171. Writ Petition No. 1402 of 2012. ACRO Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc.

172. Writ Petition No. 1403 of 2012. Ihsan Sons Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Vs. FOP, etc.

173. Writ Petition No. 1405 of 2012. Mehar Dastagir Textile . Vs. Wapda, etc.

174. Writ Petition No. 1406 of 2012. Din Textile Mills . Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc.

175. Writ Petition No. 1412 of 2012. JK Teck Pvt. Ltd. . Vs. FOP, etc.

176. Writ Petition No. 1413 of 2012. Mehmood Textile Mills. Vs. FOP, etc.

177. Writ Petition No. 1423 of 2012. Ittefaq Cotton Waste Factory etc. Vs. FOP, etc.

178. Writ Petition No. 1436 of 2012. Hussain Mills, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

179. Writ Petition No. 1437 of 2012. Fawad Textile. Vs. Wapda, etc.

180. Writ Petition No. 1438 of 2012. . Sitara Chemical Vs. Wapda, etc. .

181. Writ Petition No. 1449 of 2012. . Marral Fiber Mills etc. Vs. FOP, etc

182. Writ Petition No. 1456 of 2012. . M/s Nabeel Paper & Board Mills Vs. FOP, etc

183. Writ Petition No. 1459 of 2012. . Fecto cement Vs. Wapda, etc

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 7 of 67

184. Writ Petition No. 1460 of 2012. .Bisma Textile Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

185. Writ Petition No. 1461 of 2012. Ahmed Fine Textile Vs. FOP, etc

186. Writ Petition No. 1463 of 2012. A.A Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc

187. Writ Petition No. 1478 of 2012. ACRO Spinning & Weaving Mills Vs. FOP, etc

188. Writ Petition No. 14 85 of 2012. . Fauji Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc

189. Writ Petition No. 1494 of 2012. . Steel complex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc

190. Writ Petition No. 1495 of 2012. .Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc

191. Writ Petition No. 1501 of 2012. Rafiq Spinning Mills. Vs. FOP, etc

192. Writ Petition No. 1503 of 2012. SM Qadir Sugar Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

193. Writ Petition No. 1504 of 2012. M/S Premium Textile Vs. Wapad, etc

194. Writ Petition No. 1506 of 2012. Qadri Textile Mills etc. Vs. FOP, etc

195. Writ Petition No. 1521 of 2012. Arzoo Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

196. Writ Petition No. 1522 of 2012. Arzoo Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

197. Writ Petition No. 1523 of 2012. M/S Pioneer Cement Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc

198. Writ Petition No. 1524 of 2012. M/S Flying Cement Co. Vs. Wapda, etc

199. Writ Petition No. 1528 of 2012. Muhammad Saeed, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc

200. Writ Petition No. 1535 of 2012. Makkah paper & Board, etc. Vs. FOP, etc

201. Writ Petition No. 1546 of 2012. M/S Classic Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. GOP, etc

202. Writ Petition No. 1548 of 2012. M/S United Ice Factory etc. Vs. Wapda, etc

203. Writ Petition No. 1552 of 2012. Bilal Textile Vs. Wapda, etc

204. Writ Petition No. 1574 of 2012. M/S Usman Goraya Yarn Industries Vs. Wapda, etc

205. Writ Petition No. 1575 of 2012. Muhammad Akram, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc

206. Writ Petition No. 1582 of 2012. M/S Gasco 2000 CNG Vs. GOP, etc

207. Writ Petition No. 1591 of 2012. Rahim Bakhsh Board Mills Vs. GOP, etc

208. Writ Petition No. 1615 of 2012. Ellcot Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc

209. Writ Petition No. 1627 of 2012. Dandot Cement Co. Vs. Wapda, etc

210. Writ Petition No. 1628 of 2012. Three Star Hosiery Vs. Wapda, etc

211. Writ Petition No. 1686 of 2012. Fazal Rehma Fibrac Vs. FOP, etc

212. Writ Petition No. 1687 of 2012. Siara Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

213. Writ Petition No. 1688 of 2012. Reliance Weaving Vs. FOP, etc

214. Writ Petition No. 1706 of 2012. Abdul Rehman Khattak Vs. Wapda, etc

215. Writ Petition No. 1773 of 2012.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 8 of 67

Apollo Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

216. Writ Petition No. 1774 of 2012. Shafi Texcel Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc

217. Writ Petition No. 1800 of 2012. Master Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

218. Writ Petition No. 1819 of 2012. M/S Liaquat Steel Industry etc Vs. FOP, etc

219. Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2012. M/S New Steel Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc

220. Writ Petition No. 1821 of 2012. M/S Shadab Textile Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc

221. Writ Petition No. 1824 of 2012. Mehtabi spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc

222. Writ Petition No. 1847 of 2012. M/s Riaz Bottlers Pvt. Ltd etc Vs. Wapda, etc

223. Writ Petition No. 1849 of 2012. M/s MLW Industry Vs. Wapda, etc

224. Writ Petition No. 1850 of 2012. M/s Malik Board & Paper Industries Vs. Wapda, etc

225. Writ Petition No. 1851 of 2012. M/s Saeed Paper Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

226. Writ Petition No. 1852 of 2012. M/s Qadria Board Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

227. Writ Petition No. 1853 of 2012. Golden Fabric Vs. FOP, etc

228. Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2012. Ayesha Textile etc Vs. FOP, etc

229. Writ Petition No. 1855 of 2012. Black Gold etc Vs. FOP, etc

230. Writ Petition No. 1856 of 2012. Allah Wasaya Textile Vs. FOP, etc

231. Writ Petition No. 1860 of 2012. M/s Faisal Spinning Mills Ltd Vs. FOP, etc

232. Writ Petition No. 1866 of 2012. Dawood Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc

233. Writ Petition No. 1879 of 2012. Umer Tissue Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

234. Writ Petition No. 1880 of 2012. M/s UBC Conertech Vs. Wapda, etc

235. Writ Petition No. 1881 of 2012. M/s Park Lane Towers Ltd etc Vs. Wapda, etc

236. Writ Petition No. 1886 of 2012. Shah Pur Textile Mills etc Vs. Wapda etc

237. Writ Petition No. 1887 of 2012. Haleeb Foods Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc

238. Writ Petition No. 1895 of 2012. M/s Faras Combine Pvt etc Vs. Wapda, etc

239. Writ Petition No. 1897 of 2012. Nisar Spinning Mills Vs. FOP, etc

240. Writ Petition No. 1898 of 2012. M/s Jawaid International etc Vs. Wapda, etc

241. Writ Petition No. 1900 of 2012. M/s Kamal Steel Mills etc Vs. Wapda, etc

242. Writ Petition No. 1904 of 2012. Gulistan Textile Vs. FOP, etc

243. Writ Petition No. 1905 of 2012. Choti Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

244. Writ Petition No. 1911 of 2012. Allah Wasaya Textile Vs. FOP, etc

245. Writ Petition No. 1912 of 2012. Allah Wasaya Vs. FOP, etc

246. Writ Petition No. 1921 of 2012. Khalid Nazeer Spinning Vs. FOP, etc

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 9 of 67

247. Writ Petition No. 1926 of 2012. Bilal Qadeer etc Vs. Wapda, etc

248. Writ Petition No. 1927 of 2012. M/s Islamabad Steel Furnace etc Vs. Wapda, etc

249. Writ Petition No. 1928 of 2012. M/s Ali Steel Industries Vs. Wapda, etc

250. Writ Petition No. 1937 of 2012. M/s Nizami Wire Industries Vs. FOP, etc

251. Writ Petition No. 1945 of 2012. Ch. Shoukat Abbas Vs. GOP, etc

252. Writ Petition No. 1946 of 2012. Mst. Viqar un Nisa Vs. GOP, etc

253. Writ Petition No. 1947 of 2012. Mian Yaqoob Vs. GOP, etc

254. Writ Petition No. 1948 of 2012. Syed Ali Raza Vs. GOP, etc

255. Writ Petition No. 1949 of 2012. Syed Imtiaz Ali Vs. GOP, etc

256. Writ Petition No. 1950 of 2012. Usman Nawaz Khokar Vs. GOP, etc

257. Writ Petition No. 1951 of 2012. Usman Nawaz Khokar Vs. GOP, etc

258. Writ Petition No. 1952 of 2012. Masood ur Rehman Vs. GOP, etc

259. Writ Petition No. 1953 of 2012. Mushtaq Ali Vs. GOP, etc

260. Writ Petition No. 1954 of 2012. Muhammad Abbas Vs. GOP, etc

261. Writ Petition No. 1955 of 2012. Mian Habib ur Rehman Vs. GOP, etc

262. Writ Petition No. 1956 of 2012. Fareeda Bano Vs. GOP, etc

263. Writ Petition No. 1963 of 2012. Rafique Spinning etc Vs. FOP, etc

264. Writ Petition No. 1964 of 2012. Nishat Mills Vs. FOP, etc

265. Writ Petition No. 1965 of 2012. Thal Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc

266. Writ Petition No. 1967 of 2012. M/s Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc

267. Writ Petition No. 1968 of 2012. M/s Ravi Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

268. Writ Petition No. 1978 of 2012. Sinco Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

269. Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2012. Fuji Cement Co. Vs. Wapda, etc

270. Writ Petition No. 1984 of 2012. M/s Al-Qadir Textile Mills Vs. GOP, etc

271. Writ Petition No. 1985 of 2012. M/s MHA Weaving Mills Vs. FOP, etc

272. Writ Petition No. 1986 of 2012. MAR Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs. GOP, etc

273. Writ Petition No. 1988 of 2012. Sargodha Spinning Mills etc Vs. Wapda, etc

274. Writ Petition No. 1989 of 2012. M/s Ittehad Steel Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

275. Writ Petition No. 1990 of 2012. D.G Khan Cement etc Vs. Wapda, etc

276. Writ Petition No. 1991 of 2012. Ittehad Chemical etc Vs. Wapda, etc

277. Writ Petition No. 1992 of 2012. Fazal Rehman Fabrics etc Vs. Wapda, etc

278. Writ Petition No. 1993 of 2012.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 10 of 67

Neeli Bar Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

279. Writ Petition No. 1994 of 2012. Hussain Mills Ltd Vs. FOP, etc

280. Writ Petition No. 1995 of 2012. Fawad Textile Mills Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc

281. Writ Petition No. 1996 of 2012. Sitara Chemical Industry Vs. Wapda, etc

282. Writ Petition No. 1997 of 2012. Zia ul Qamar Spinning Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc

283. Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2012. New Shalimar Steel etc Vs. FOP, etc

284. Writ Petition No. 2003 of 2012. Shah Jewana Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

285. Writ Petition No. 2004 of 2012. Sunday Textile Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc

286. Writ Petition No. 2007 of 2012. Bilal Weaving Factory Vs. Wapda, etc

287. Writ Petition No. 2008 of 2012. S.M Qadri Sugar Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

288. Writ Petition No. 2011 of 2012. Pakistan CNG Station Vs. FOP, etc

289. Writ Petition No. 2015 of 2012. M/s Pioneer Cement Pvt. Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc

290. Writ Petition No. 2017 of 2012. Fatima Enterprises Vs. Wapda, etc

291. Writ Petition No. 2018 of 2012. Al-Qamar Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc

292. Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2012. M/s Campellpur Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc

293. Writ Petition No. 2021 of 2012. Colony Mills Ltd Vs. FOP, etc

294. Writ Petition No. 2022 of 2012. Sapphire Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

295. Writ Petition No. 2023 of 2012. Reliance Weaving Mills Vs. FOP, etc

296. Writ Petition No. 2032 of 2012. Areeha Pvt. Ltd Vs. FOP, etc

297. Writ Petition No. 2036 of 2012. M/s Al-Rehman Processing etc Vs. Wapda, etc

298. Writ Petition No. 2037 of 2012. M/s Flying Cement Company Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc

299. Writ Petition No. 2039 of 2012. M/s Bhimra Textile Mills Ltd Vs. FOP, etc

300. Writ Petition No. 2040 of 2012. Muhammad Saeed etc Vs. Wapda etc

301. Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2012. M/s Waheed Shahzad Plastic Works Vs. Wapda, etc

302. Writ Petition No. 2045 of 2012. M/s Islamabad Steel Mills Vs. GOP, etc

303. Writ Petition No. 2046 of 2012. Fatima Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc

304. Writ Petition No. 2047 of 2012. Nasir Flour Mills etc Vs. FOP, etc

305. Writ Petition No. 2084 of 2012. M/s Best Chip Board Vs. Wapda, etc

306. Writ Petition No. 2100 of 2012. M/s Nabeel Papers & Board Mills Vs. FOP, etc

307. Writ Petition No. 2159 of 2012. M/s Maqbool & Sons Vs. FOP, etc

308. Writ Petition No. 2230 of 2012. M/s Ali Riasat Steel Vs. FOP, etc

309. Writ Petition No. 2276 of 2012. Fine Gas Co. Vs. FOP, etc

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 11 of 67

310. Writ Petition No. 2281 of 2012. M/s City Textile etc Vs. FOP, etc

311. Writ Petition No. 2285 of 2012. M/s Noor Hussain &Sons etc Vs. FOP, etc

312. Writ Petition No. 2289 of 2012. M/s Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc

313. Writ Petition No. 2290 of 2012. M/s Faisal Spinning Mills Ltd etc Vs. FOP, etc

314. Writ Petition No. 2301 of 2012. Ch. Muhammad Shafique etc Vs. Wapda, etc

315. Writ Petition No. 2306 of 2012. M/s MLW Vs. Wapda, etc

316. Writ Petition No. 2307 of 2012. M/s Malik Board & Papers Vs. Wapda, etc

317. Writ Petition No. 2308 of 2012. Waheed Shahzad Plastic Works Vs. Wapda, etc

318. Writ Petition No. 2309 of 2012. M/s Sajid Paper Mills Pvt. Vs. Wapda, etc

319. Writ Petition No. 2310 of 2012. M/s Umer Tissue Mills Vs Wapda, etc

320. Writ Petition No. 2311 of 2012. Pak Mughal Enterprises Vs Wapda, etc

321. Writ Petition No. 2312 of 2012. M/s Kamal Steel Mills Vs Wapda, etc

322. Writ Petition No. 2313 of 2012. Anmol Textile Mills Vs Wapda, etc

323. Writ Petition No. 2314 of 2012. M/s Pak Steel etc Vs Wapda, etc

324. Writ Petition No. 2316 of 2012. Ghouri Tyre & Tube Pvt Vs FOP etc

325. Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2012. M/s MHA Weaving Mills Vs FOP etc

326. Writ Petition No. 2318 of 2012. M/s Fiber Dyeing Vs FOP etc

327. Writ Petition No. 2324 of 2012. M/s Riaz Bottlers Vs Wapda, etc

328. Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2012. HA Fiber Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

329. Writ Petition No. 2327 of 2012. Zia ur Rehman Vs FOP etc

330. Writ Petition No. 2331 of 2012. Qasur Textile Mills Vs FOP etc

331. Writ Petition No. 2332 of 2012. Al-Fateh Industries Vs FOP etc

332. Writ Petition No. 2335 of 2012. M/s Umair Steel Industry Vs Wapda, etc

333. Writ Petition No. 2336 of 2012. M/s Happy Manufacturing Co. Vs Wapda, etc

334. Writ Petition No. 2337 of 2012. M/s Qadria Board Mills Vs Wapda, etc

335. Writ Petition No. 2343 of 2012. M/s Al-Karam Papers Mills Pvt Vs FOP etc

336. Writ Petition No. 2344 of 2012. Muhammad Yousaf Munir Vs FOP etc

337. Writ Petition No. 2345 of 2012. Makkah Steel Mills Vs FOP etc

338. Writ Petition No. 2346 of 2012. M/s Black Diamond Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs FOP etc

339. Writ Petition No. 2347 of 2012. Combine Spinning Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

340. Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2012. Nafeesa Textile Ltd. Etc Vs FOP etc

341. Writ Petition No. 2349 of 2012. Farooq Khalid Pipe Mills Pvt. Ltd etc Vs Wapda etc

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 12 of 67

342. Writ Petition No. 2352 of 2012. Muhammad Rab Nawaz Vs FOP etc

343. Writ Petition No. 2353 of 2012. Royal Steel Mills etc Vs FOP etc

344. Writ Petition No. 2358 of 2012. Shams Textile Mills Ltd Vs FOP etc

345. Writ Petition No. 2366 of 2012. M/s Anmol Paper Mills Vs FOP etc

346. Writ Petition No. 2367 of 2012. ACRO Spinning & Weaving Mills etc Vs FOP etc

347. Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2012. Maahar Fashion Apparels Pvt Vs FOP etc

348. Writ Petition No. 2379 of 2012. SINCO Steel Re-Rolling Vs Wapda etc

349. Writ Petition No. 2416 of 2012. Fuji Cement Co. Ltd Vs Wapda etc

350. Writ Petition No. 2417 of 2012. Standard Textile Mills etc Vs Wapda etc

351. Writ Petition No. 2418 of 2012. M/s Faisal Asad Textile Mills Vs Wapda etc

352. Writ Petition No. 2419 of 2012. M/s Ch. Steel Casting Vs Wapda etc

353. Writ Petition No. 2421 of 2012. M/s Hiadri Beverages Vs Wapda etc

354. Writ Petition No. 2428 of 2012. Gharibwal Cement Vs Wapda etc

355. Writ Petition No. 2430 of 2012. Haleeb Foods Ltd Vs Wapda etc

356. Writ Petition No. 2431 of 2012. Haleeb Foods Ltd Vs Wapda etc

357. Writ Petition No. 2439 of 2012. ACRO Textile Mills Ltd Vs FOP etc

358. Writ Petition No. 2440 of 2012. Nisar Ahmed etc Vs FOP etc

359. Writ Petition No. 2445 of 2012. Al-Khair CNG Vs Wapda etc

360. Writ Petition No. 2446 of 2012. Bismallah Cold Storage Vs FOP etc

361. Writ Petition No. 2447 of 2012. Campbellpur Flour Mills Vs FOP etc

362. Writ Petition No. 2455 of 2012. M/s Mark Industries Pak. Vs GOP etc

363. Writ Petition No. 2465 of 2012. M/s White Pearl Rice Mills Vs FOP etc

364. Writ Petition No. 2468 of 2012. M/s Best chip Board Industries Vs FOP etc

365. Writ Petition No. 2470 of 2012. Aftab Textile Processing etc Vs Wapda etc

366. Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012. M/s Ever Green Rice Mills & 2 others Vs Chairman NEPRA etc

367. Writ Petition No. 2495 of 2012. M/s General Industrial Gases Vs FOP etc

368. Writ Petition No. 2505 of 2012. M/s Sangha CNG Vs Chairman NEPRA etc

369. Writ Petition No. 2506 of 2012. Bismallah Ice Factory Vs Chairman NEPRA etc

370. Writ Petition No. 2507 of 2012. Pir Kabeer Flour Mills Vs Chairman NEPRA etc

371. Writ Petition No. 2508 of 2012. Ch. Muhammad Sidduqe Flour Mills Vs Chairman NEPRA etc

372. Writ Petition No. 2513 of 2012. Fatima Enterprises Vs Wapda etc

373. Writ Petition No. 2539 of 2012. M/s Ahmed Rice etc Vs Chairman NEPRA etc

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 13 of 67

374. Writ Petition No. 2540 of 2012. M/s Rehman Rice Mills etc Vs Chairman NEPRA etc

375. Writ Petition No. 2636 of 2012. Matloob Hussain etc Vs FOP etc

376. Writ Petition No. 2637 of 2012. M/s Textile Mills Ltd Vs Wapda etc

377. Writ Petition No. 2647 of 2012. Asian Food Industries etc Vs FOP etc

378. Writ Petition No. 2648 of 2012. Kohinoor Textile Mills etc Vs FOP etc

379. Writ Petition No. 2649 of 2012. Fawad Textile Mills Vs FOP etc

380. Writ Petition No. 2650 of 2012. Naseem Enterprises etc Vs FOP etc

381. Writ Petition No. 2651 of 2012. Maple Leaf Cement Vs FOP etc

382. Writ Petition No. 2652 of 2012. M/s Qad Cast Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

383. Writ Petition No. 2655 of 2012. M/s Paramount Engineering Works etc Vs FOP etc

384. Writ Petition No. 2662 of 2012. M/s Capital Flour Mills etc Vs NEPRA through its Chairman etc

385. Writ Petition No. 2664 of 2012. AA Cotton Mills etc Vs FOP etc

386. Writ Petition No. 2674 of 2012. M/s M.H.A Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

387. Writ Petition No. 2675 of 2012. M/s Malik Steel Re-Rolling etc Vs FOP etc

388. Writ Petition No. 2676 of 2012. Shams Textile Mills Vs FOP etc

389. Writ Petition No. 2682 of 2012. M/s Ali Riasat Steel Industry Vs FOP etc

390. Writ Petition No. 2683 of 2012. M/s Faisal Spinning Mills Ltd Vs FOP etc

391. Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2012. M/s KSF Plastic Industries Vs FOP etc

392. Writ Petition No. 2696 of 2012. M/s Famous Plastic Industries Vs FOP etc

393. Writ Petition No. 2697 of 2012. M/s Neelum Soap Industries Vs FOP etc

394. Writ Petition No. 2698 of 2012. M/s Mujahid Soap & Chemical Vs FOP etc

395. Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2012. Eastern Steel etc Vs FOP etc

396. Writ Petition No. 2706 of 2012. Golden Textile Mills Vs FOP etc

397. Writ Petition No. 2709 of 2012. M/s Nishat Product Textile Vs FOP etc

398. Writ Petition No. 2715 of 2012. M/s Naeem Industry Vs FOP etc

399. Writ Petition No. 2721 of 2012. M/s Sayid Paper Mills Vs FOP etc

400. Writ Petition No. 2722of 2012. M/s Paradise Spinning Mills Vs FOP etc

401. Writ Petition No. 2728 of 2012. M/s Umer Tissue Mills Vs FOP etc

402. Writ Petition No. 2729 of 2012. M/s MLW Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

403. Writ Petition No. 2730 of 2012. M/s Malik Board & Papers Mills Vs FOP etc

404. Writ Petition No. 2731 of 2012. M/s Qadria Board Mills Vs FOP etc

405. Writ Petition No. 2732 of 2012.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 14 of 67

New Horizan Spinning Mills Vs FOP etc

406. Writ Petition No. 2733 of 2012. Hamza Enterprises etc Vs FOP etc

407. Writ Petition No. 2738 of 2012. Fuji Cement Co. Vs FOP etc

408. Writ Petition No. 2743 of 2012. Sinco Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs FOP etc

409. Writ Petition No. 2745 of 2012. M/s M. Asif Steel Industries Vs FOP etc

410. Writ Petition No. 2746 of 2012. M/s Tariq Steel Mills etc Vs FOP etc

411. Writ Petition No. 2747 of 2012. Terry World Textile Vs FOP etc

412. Writ Petition No. 2748 of 2012. Lahore Polypropylene Industries Vs FOP etc

413. Writ Petition No. 2751 of 2012. Al-Qamar Flour Mills Vs FOP etc

414. Writ Petition No. 2753 of 2012. M/s Muhammadi Papers & Board Industry Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

415. Writ Petition No. 2757 of 2012. Shamim Akhtar etc Vs FOP etc

416. Writ Petition No. 2762 of 2012. M/s Shaheen Paper Vs FOP etc

417. Writ Petition No. 2765 of 2012. M/s Islam Steel Mills etc Vs FOP etc

418. Writ Petition No. 2770 of 2012. M/s TSJ International etc Daska Vs Wapda etc

419. Writ Petition No. 2772 of 2012. M/s Syed Papers Mills Vs Wapda etc

420. Writ Petition No. 2773 of 2012. M/s Umer Tissue Papers Mills Vs Wapda etc

421. Writ Petition No. 2774 of 2012. M/s Malik Board & Papers Industries Vs Wapda etc

422. Writ Petition No. 2775 of 2012. M/s Qadri Baord Mills Vs Wapda etc

423. Writ Petition No. 2777 of 2012. M/s Abdul Ghani Rice Mills Vs FOP etc

424. Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2012. M/s Farooq Ayub Steel Re-Rolling Mills etc Vs Wapda etc

425. Writ Petition No. 2781 of 2012. M/s Haleeb Foods Ltd Vs Wapda etc

426. Writ Petition No. 2784 of 2012. M/s Nasir Solvent Plant Vs Wapda etc

427. Writ Petition No. 2785 of 2012. M/s Bismallah Cold Storage Vs FOP etc

428. Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2012. M/s Campbellpur Flour Mills Vs FOP etc

429. Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2012. M/s Garnada Textile Mills Vs FOP etc

430. Writ Petition No. 2788 of 2012. M/s Bilal Fiber Ltd Vs FOP etc

431. Writ Petition No. 2789 of 2012. M/s REDCO Textile Ltd Vs FOP etc

432. Writ Petition No. 2791 of 2012. Kunjah Textile Mills Vs FOP etc

433. Writ Petition No. 2795 of 2012. M/s HAR Textile Mills etc Vs FOP etc

434. Writ Petition No. 2797 of 2012. Gharibwal Cement Ltd Vs Wapda etc

435. Writ Petition No. 2803 of 2012. M/s Al-Madina Packages Vs Govt. of Pak. Through M/o Wapda

436. Writ Petition No. 2804 of 2012. M/s Koni Pex etc Vs Govt. of Pak. Through M/o Wapda

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 15 of 67

437. Writ Petition No. 2805 of 2012 M/s Fazal ur Rehman etc Vs Govt of Pak. Through M/o Wapda

438. Writ Petition No. 2806 of 2012 M/s Ittehad Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

439. Writ Petition No. 2807 of 2012 M/s Ruby Textile Mills Vs FOP etc

440. Writ Petition No. 2808 of 2012 M/s Ahmed Textile Processing Pvt. Ltd etc Vs Wapda etc

441. Writ Petition No. 2814 of 2012 Usman Goraya Spinning Mills Vs FOP etc

442. Writ Petition No. 2816 of 2012 Mehboob Alam Vs Wapda etc

443. Writ Petition No. 2821 of 2012 Iftikhar Ahmed Vs FOP etc

444. Writ Petition No. 2822 of 2012 M/s Fatima Enterprises Ltd Vs FOP etc

445. Writ Petition No. 2830 of 2012 M/s Agha Ghee Printers, Isb. Vs Chairman NEPRA etc

446. Writ Petition No. 2832 of 2012 M/s National Filling Station Vs GOP etc

447. Writ Petition No. 2833 of 2012 M/s Haideri Beverages Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

448. Writ Petition No. 2845 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

449. Writ Petition No. 2846 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

450. Writ Petition No. 2847 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

451. Writ Petition No. 2848 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

452. Writ Petition No. 2849 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

453. Writ Petition No. 2850 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

454. Writ Petition No. 2851 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

455. Writ Petition No. 2852 of 2012 M/s Steel Complex Pvt. Ltd Vs FOP etc

456. Writ Petition No. 2921 of 2012 Ahmed Glass Industies . Vs Wapda, etc.

457. Writ Petition No. 2944 of 2012 Faisal Spinning Mills etc. Vs FOP etc

458. Writ Petition No. 2960 of 2012 Asia Food Industry Vs FOP etc

459. Writ Petition No. 2962 of 2012 Prosperity Weaving Mills Vs FOP etc

460. Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2012 Naveena Industry Ltd Vs FOP etc

461. Writ Petition No. 2969 of 2012 Lyallpur Textile Vs FOP etc

462. Writ Petition No. 2974 of 2012 M/s Malik Steel Re Rolling Mills Vs FOP etc

463. Writ Petition No. 2986 of 2012 Shams Textile Mills, etc. Vs FOP etc

464. Writ Petition No. 2988 of 2012 M/s Riasat Ali Mills, etc . Ltd Vs FOP etc

465. Writ Petition No. 2989 of 2012 M/s Fast Steel Casting, etc. Vs FOP etc

466. Writ Petition No. 2992 of 2012 M/s Standard Spinning Mills etc. Vs FOP etc

467. Writ Petition No. 2993 of 2012 Sardarpur Textile Mills etc. Vs FOP etc

468. Writ Petition No. 2994 of 2012 M/s Sayid Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs Wapda, etc

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 16 of 67

469. Writ Petition No. 2995 of 2012 M/s MLW Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Wapda, etc.

470. Writ Petition No. 2996 of 2012 M/s Umer Tissue Mills Ltd Vs Wapda, etc.

471. Writ Petition No. 2997 of 2012 M/S Qadria Board Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc.

472. Writ Petition No. 2999 of 2012 Haleeb Food Mills Vs. Wapda, etc.

473. Writ Petition No. 3001 of 2012 Haleeb Foods Mills . Ltd Vs. Wapda, etc.

474. Writ Petition No. 3004 of 2012 Rehmat Steel Vs Wapda, etc.

475. Writ Petition No. 3011 of 2012 Fauji Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc

476. Writ Petition No. 3013 of 2012 M/S Siddique Leather Pvt. Ltd. etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

477. Writ Petition No. 3014 of 2012 Abdul Jabbar, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

478. Writ Petition No. 3016 of 2012 M/S City Steel UAE Mills etc. Vs. Wapda, etc.

479. Writ Petition No. 3020 of 2012 M/S Hafsa Foundary Vs. FOP etc

480. Writ Petition No. 3024 of 2012 Muhammad Younas, etc. Vs FOP etc

481. Writ Petition No. 3028 of 2012 Tata Textile Mills Ltd. etc. Vs FOP etc

482. Writ Petition No. 3030 of 2012 AZGARD NINE Ltd. Vs FOP etc

483. Writ Petition No. 3037 of 2012 M/S MHA Weaving Mills Vs. FOP etc

484. Writ Petition No. 3038 of 2012 Muhammad Siddique Mughal Vs FOP etc

485. Writ Petition No. 3052 of 2012 Abdullah Textile Mills Vs Wapda, etc

486. Writ Petition No. 3067 of 2012 M/S Baba Fareed Steel Vs FOP etc

487. Writ Petition No. 3077 of 2012 Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. Vs FOP etc

488. Writ Petition No. 3097 of 2012 M/S SH Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs GOP etc

489. Writ Petition No. 3099 of 2012 Faisal Spinning Mills Vs FOP etc

490. Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2012 M/S Disposable Utensics Industries Vs Chairman NEPRA, etc.

491. Writ Petition No. 3139 of 2012 Al-Qammar Flour Mills Vs FOP etc

492. Writ Petition No. 3140 of 2012 Bismillah Cold Storage Vs FOP etc

493. Writ Petition No. 3141 of 2012 M/S Cambellpur Flour Mills Vs FOP etc

494. Writ Petition No. 3143 of 2012

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 17 of 67

Masood Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc

495. Writ Petition No. 3150 of 2012 M/S Zahara Textile Mills etc. Vs FOP etc

496. Writ Petition No. 3151 of 2012 Gharibwal cement Ltd. Vs FOP etc

497. Writ Petition No. 3152 of 2012 Fiber Tex Industry Vs FOP etc

498. Writ Petition No. 3153 of 2012 Super Asia Muhammad Din Sons Vs FOP etc

499. Writ Petition No. 3161 of 2012 C.M Food Vs FOP etc

500. Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2012 Shamim Feed Industries Vs FOP etc

501. Writ Petition No. 3163 of 2012 Saweera Flour & General Mills Vs NEPRA, etc

502. Writ Petition No. 3164 of 2012 Shamim Ghee Vs FOP etc

503. Writ Petition No. 3165 of 2012 Shamim Oil Mills Vs FOP etc

504. Writ Petition No. 3192 of 2012 Al-Hamra Fabrics etc. Vs Wapda, etc

505. Writ Petition No. 3195 of 2012 Qaiser Altaf Peracha, etc. Vs FOP etc

506. Writ Petition No. 3196 of 2012 M/s Haidri Beverages Vs. FOP etc

507. Writ Petition No. 3198 of 2012 Blue Star Spinning Mills. Vs. FOP etc

508. Writ Petition No. 3200 of 2012 Ittehad Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP etc

509. Writ Petition No. 3210 of 2012 Lahore Spinning Vs. FOP etc

510. Writ Petition No. 3245 of 2012 M/S Z.N Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP etc

511. Writ Petition No. 3272 of 2012 Excel Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP etc

512. Writ Petition No. 3273 of 2012 Excel Cards Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP etc

513. Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2012 Daud Ahmed Vs. FOP etc

514. Writ Petition No. 3275 of 2012 Computer Valley Vs. FOP etc

515. Writ Petition No. 3301 of 2012 M/S Lafarge Pakistan Cement Co. Vs. FOP etc

516. Writ Petition No. 3337 of 2012 M/S Dewan Farooq Spinning Vs. FOP etc

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 18 of 67

517. Writ Petition No. 3406 of 2012 Ayesha Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP etc

518. Writ Petition No. 3410 of 2012 M/S ATS Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc

519. Writ Petition No. 3418 of 2012 Khokhar Textile Mills. Vs. FOP etc

520. Writ Petition No. 3453 of 2012 Fauji Cement Company Vs. Wapda, etc

521. Writ Petition No. 3469 of 2012 Abdullah Textile Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

522. Writ Petition No. 3478 of 2012 M/S Umer Tissue Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

523. Writ Petition No. 3479 of 2012 M/S MLW Industries Vs. Wapda, etc

524. Writ Petition No. 3480 of 2012 M/S Sayid Paper Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

525. Writ Petition No. 3481 of 2012 Diamond Tyres Ltd. etc. Vs. FOP, etc

526. Writ Petition No. 3482 of 2012 Mian Muhammad Hamza Nizami Vs. FOP, etc

527. Writ Petition No. 3485 of 2012 M/S Lucky Steel Foundry Vs. FOP, etc.

528. Writ Petition No. 3502 of 2012 M/S Barkat Steel Mills. Vs. FOP, etc

529. Writ Petition No. 3506 of 2012 Suraj Textile Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

530. Writ Petition No. 3507 of 2012 Shams Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

531. Writ Petition No. 3515 of 2012 Tanvir Spinning Mills Vs. Wapda, etc

532. Writ Petition No. 3516 of 2012 Unze Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc

533. Writ Petition No. 3526 of 2012 Haleeb Foods Ltd. Vs. Wapda, etc

534. Writ Petition No. 3542 of 2012 Shaheen Cotton Mills. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc

535. Writ Petition No. 3545 of 2012 Shehzad Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc

536. Writ Petition No. 3423 of 2012 Unipet Industries Pvt. Ltd. etc. vs. Wapda, etc.

537. Writ Petition No. 3558 of 2012 King Flour Mills Vs. NEPRA, etc.

538. Writ Petition No. 3575 of 2012 M/S Excel Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc

539. Writ Petition No. 3576 of 2012

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 19 of 67

M/S Excel cards Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc

540. Writ Petition No. 3577 of 2012 Famous Textile Mills Ltd. etc. Vs. FOP, etc.

541. Writ Petition No. 3585 of 2012 Service Industries Ltd. Vs. FOP, etc

542. Writ Petition No. 3590 of 2012 Muhammad Sharif, etc. Vs. FOP, etc

543. Writ Petition No. 3591 of 2012 M/S Asmat Textile Mills Vs. FOP, etc

544. Writ Petition No. 3597 of 2012 M/S Gunj Bux Gases Co. etc. Vs. FOP, etc.

545. Writ Petition No. 3600 of 2012 Mubeen Maqbool, etc. Vs. Wapda, etc

546. Writ Petition No. 3602 of 2012 Al-Qamar Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc

547. Writ Petition No. 3606 of 2012 M. Asif Steel Industries Vs. FOP, etc

548. Writ Petition No. 3607 of 2012 M/S BM Steel Mills. Vs. FOP, etc.

549. Writ Petition No. 3608 of 2012 Champbellpur Flour Mills Vs. FOP, etc

550. Writ Petition No. 3609 of 2012 Bismillah Cold Storage Vs. FOP, etc

Petitioners by: Malik Qamar Afzal, Mian Mehmood Rashid, Mr. Babar Ilyas

Chatha, Mr. Nabeel Rehman, Syed Ishfaq Hussain Naqvi,

Ms. Zainab Effendi, Ms. Rehana Zaman, Rao Hamid

Rehman, Mr. Niazullah Khan Niazi, Ms. Mehraj Tareen, Kh.

Manzoor Ahmed, Mr. Shahzad Rabbani, Barrister Momin

Ali Khan, Mr. Bilal Akbar Tarrar, Mr. Faqir Hussain

Majrooh, Mr. Muhammad Akram Naveed, Mr. A. Salam

Qureshi, Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Mr. Muhammad Siddique

Mughal, Mr. M. Anum Salim, Ms. Mehnaz Shiraz, Ch. M.

Tahir Mehmood, Ch. Muhammad Abdul Latif Gujar, Mr.

Arif Mehmood, Mr. Jawad Mehmood Pasha, Mr. M. Rehan

Sameer, Mr. M. Waseem Chaudhry, Rana Ali Akbar Khan,

Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, Mr. Ghulam Farid Chaudhry, Mr.

Mushtaq Ahmed Kamboh, Mr. Muhammad Rehan Sarwar,

Malik Mumtaz Hussain Khokhar, Mr. Muhammad Siddique

Qazi, Mr. Muhammad Waqas Malik, Mian Muhammad

Hussain Chotiya, Mr. Zulqarnain Hamid, Ch. Mumtaz-ul-

Hassan, Advocates for petitioners in their respective

petitions.

Respondents by:-

Kh. Ahmed Tariq Rahim and Sh. Muhammad Ali, Advocates

for M/O Water & Power, Islamabad.

Mr. Shamshad Ullah Cheema along with Mr. Muhammad

Shafique, Legal Advisor for NEPRA.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 20 of 67

Mr. Munawar-us-Salam and Muhammad Usman Sahi,

Advocate for LESCO.

Syed Kazim Hussain Kazmi along with Muhammad Siddique

Malik, Director Legal (GEPCO) for GEPCO & IESCO.

Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman, Mr. Muhammad Shakeel Abbasi, Mr.

Muhammad Asif Khan and Mr. Saeed Raza, Advocates for

IESCO.

Rana Asif Saeed, Advocate on behalf of MEPCO, GEPCO,

NTDC & FESCO.

Mr. Asad Jan, Advocate along with Mr. Shakeel, AD Legal

for PESCO.

Mr. Noman Munir Peracha, Advocate for HESCO.

Mr. Muhammad Khalid Zaman, Advocate and Mr. Kamran

Amjad Advocate for FESCO.

Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi, Advocate for MEPCO.

Dates of hearing: 08-10-2012, 15-10-2012 & 22-10-2012.

SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI; J: The bulk of writ petitions,

consisting of 550 in total, challenging the levy and

demand of “Fuel Adjustment Charges”, were allowed by

this court by means of a short order dated 24.10.2012,

which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

“For the reasons, to be recorded later on, all above

captioned writ petitions are allowed through instant

single order, to the following effect:

(i) It is declared that Regulatory Authority is

under statutory obligation to protect the

interest of consumer as well, instead of

allowing the distributors to raise demand

of FAC in a mechanical fashion. The

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan does not permit exploitation of

any kind or form, therefore, it casts duty

upon the High Court to protect any

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 21 of 67

person from being exploited and to provide

shield to the Socio Economic fiber of the

country, from being disrupted at the hands

of executive functionaries. The

consumer/citizens cannot be left at the

mercy of bodies at advantageous position,

as arbitrary exercise of authority, malafide

actions and illegal demands have always

been checked by the superior Courts.

(ii) Levy and demand of Fuel Adjustment

Charges as arrears with retrospective effect

is declared as unconstitutional, besides the law

applicable, principles of natural justice and

dictums laid down by the superior courts of the

country.

(iii) The scope of levy/demand of Fuel

Adjustment Charges cannot be expanded and

has to remain within the variations in the prices

of fuel.

(iv) The distributors of electricity are directed

to issue amended bills and in case consumers

had already paid the bills, excessive amount

received be adjusted accordingly, which has to

be reflected in the bills of coming month. All

persons/consumers whether before this Court,

or not, must be treated equally.”

2. The reasons for the above reproduced short

order are as follows.

3. In all the writ petitions captioned above, the

petitioners, who are consumers of electricity in the

country, have attacked the legality of the levy and

demand of Fuel Adjustment Surcharge from them

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 22 of 67

by the distribution companies allowed by the

National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, herein

after referred to as NEPRA.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners argued the case at great length. The crux

of their arguments is given in the following

passages.

5. Malik Qamar Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court

made a comprehensive reference to the NEPRA’s

powers, structure and historical back ground. His

arguments are:

• Executive order/notification which is

detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of a

person cannot operate retrospective. However

a beneficial executive order/notification can be

given retrospective effect. He has placed

reliance upon 2005 SCMR 492, PLD 1997 SC

1027.

• Fiscal liability is to be construed strictly and

no fiscal liability can be imposed on past and

closed transaction, PLD 2011 Karachi 437,

2011 PTD 1460, 2009 PTD 722.

• Every fiscal statute contains three distinct

categories i.e., charging, collection and

assessment provisions. Charging provisions

have to be construed strictly and any benefit

found therein has to be given to the tax payer.

(2010 PTD 635, 2009 PTD 1473)

• There exists a glaring gap between the month

for which FPA is determined and demand of

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 23 of 67

same through bills. The submissions made in

this regard may be illustrated in the form of

chart as follows:

SRO No & Determination date

Date of Notification

Billing Month implementing the Notification

Corresponding month

Difference

202(1)/2012 dated 28.02.2012

29.02.2012 March, 2012 August, 2011 7 Months

374(1)/2012 dated 17.04.2012

17.04.2012 May, 2012 Sept. 2011 7 Months

447(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012

03.05.2012 June, 2012 Oct. 2011 8 Months

448(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012

03.05.2012 July, 2012 November, 2011

8 Months

449(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012

03.05.2012 July, 2012 December, 2011

7 Months

450(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012

03.05.2012 August, 2012 January, 2012 7 Months

523(1)/2012 dated 18.05.2012

22.05.2012 September,2012 February, 2012 6 Months

524(1)/2012 dated 18.05.2012

22.05.2012 October, 2012 March, 2012 6 Months

• In order to explain the proposition involved in

the instant case the learned counsel has given

a brief comparison of NEPRA with Regulatory

Commission of Alaska, USA. In this account he

has placed on record a judgment rendered by

Supreme Court of Alaska in case of

“Matanuska Electric Association Inc. Vs.

Chugach Electric Association Inc.”, wherein it

has been held that Retroactive Rate making is

prohibited in Alaska as it is in the majority of

jurisdiction in US. The Supreme Court

reversed the Commission’s order while

concluding that commission’s order

constituted retroactive rate making.

• Fundamental rule of rate making is that rates

are exclusively prospective in nature.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 24 of 67

6. Muhammad Anum Saleem Advocate, while

putting appearance on behalf of the petitioners,

argued at length about the fundamental rights at

stake in the matter; the power, scope and

jurisdiction of the superior courts to review the

executive/administrative actions; and issues

pertaining to rule of law, democratic norms, good

governance and equal treatment in context of the lis

in hand. He made the following submissions:

• While referring to a number of celebrated

judgments of the court of apex as well as from

Indian Jurisdiction, the learned counsel

maintained that Article 9 of the Constitution

has been interpreted and its scope has been

enlarged to each and every aspect of human

life. Therefore, whenever a policy is framed,

with reference to uplifting the socio-economic

conditions of the citizens, object should be to

ensure enforcement of their fundamental

rights. Relied upon 2012 SCMR 773; PLD 2010

SC 1109; PLD 2010 SC 759; PLD 2011 SC

619; PLD 1994 SC 693

• Right to live guaranteed in any civilized society

implies the right to shelter and while

discussing the right to shelter the superior

courts have held that the same includes the

electricity being an essential service to the

shelter for the human beings. He has referred

to AIR 1996 SC 90; 1995 INDLAW SC 1358;

2007 INDLAW CAL 133; PLD 2009 SC 644

• Every executive or administrative action of the

state or other statutory or public body is open

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 25 of 67

to judicial scrutiny and High Courts and

Supreme Court, in exercise of the power of

judicial review under the Constitution, can

quash the executive action or decision which is

violative of fundamental rights guaranteed

under the Constitution.

• Judicial review is designed to prevent the

cases of abuse of power and neglect of duty by

public authority, and the superior courts of

the country under the constitutional

jurisdiction are conferred with wide powers to

reach injustice where ever it is found. In

this regard he has made reference to PLD 2012

SC 292; PLD 2011 SC 963; PLD 2011 SC 997;

2012 SCMR 06; PLD 2011 SC 407; PLD 1967

SC 569; 2010 INDLAW DEL 928.

• Public functions need not be the exclusive

domain of the State and several corporations

and companies have also been formed to

perform public functions and to achieve some

collective benefit for the public or a section of

public, then a writ of mandamus lie in such

matters against such corporations and

companies.

• The superior court’s power of judicial review of

administrative and executive decisions is

squarely, adequately and widely available on

the grounds of illegality, irrationality and

procedural impropriety.

• While referring to Arts.18, 15, 24 of the

constitution submit that in fact the impugned

proviso and consequent levy of surcharge

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 26 of 67

tantamount to prohibit and prevent the

business and trade in the country. Reasonable

restriction does not, at all mean deprivation of

citizens from fundamental rights.

• Impugned proviso as well as levy and demand

of Fuel Adjustment Surcharge do not stand the

test of due process as well as fundamental

rights as envisaged under Arts. 4, 9, 14 and

25.

• The respondent’s acts are also against the very

concepts of good governance, rule of law,

which are recipe for corruption,

mismanagement, nepotism, jobbery besides

being illegal, ultra-vires to the constitutional

commands and discriminatory as well.

• NEPRA order(s) does not contain within itself

the essential requirement of rule of law. It is

clear besides the mandate of express

provisions of section 31(2) of the Act. It also

amounts to arbitrary, unreasonable and

confiscatory exercise of power.

• Fundamental rights in the constitution are to

be read and interpreted by the superior courts

in expansive, dynamic and flexible manner.

Articles of Universal Declaration of Human

Rights have also been taken in consideration

by the superior courts of the country while

interpreting the fundamental rights as

guaranteed in our own Constitution. PLD 2011

SC 407; 2012 SCMR 06, PLD 2012 SC 292;

PLD 1993 SC 341; PLD 2011 LAHORE 120;

1999 SCMR 1379

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 27 of 67

7. Mian Mehmood Rashid, Advocate Supreme

Court, while putting his appearance submitted as

follows:

• The proviso to section 31(4) of the NEPRA Act,

1997, amended on 29.09.2011, is ultra vires

the constitution and the vires of NEPRA Act,

1997. The learned counsel emphasized that

the proviso was ultra vires to the constitution

and law even before the amendment, what to

talk of its absurdity after the amendment.

• While dilating upon the issue of retrospective

charge the learned counsel stated that almost

all the determinations and notifications are

delayed for about five to seven months at least.

The difference pointed out by the learned

counsel is as follows:

Determination date

Date of Notification

Billing Month implement-ting the Notifications

Corresponding month

Difference

15.06.2011 23.08.2011 April, 2011 September, 2011

5 Months

19.07.2011 23.08.2011 May, 2011 September, 2011

4 Months

12.08.2011 29.09.2011 June, 2011 October, 2011 5 Months

03.10.2011 01.11.2011 July, 2011 November, 2011

5 Months

• In this back drop, the learned counsel

emphasized that the Fuel Adjustment

Surcharge for the month of April was made

after a lapse of 170 days, and for the month of

May, June and July, 2011 was made after s

lapse of 140 days each.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 28 of 67

• The recovery of Fuel Adjustment Charges is

obviously back dated; retrospective in nature,

levied in a situation when the crucial months

had already been closed and paid for, thus

became a past and closed transaction.

• All the electricity companies, acting under the

blessings of the government, operate in a

monopolistic manner, whereas the petitioners

are the commercial entrepreneurs who are

acting in competitive commercial markets. The

manner, the authority is being exercised, the

electricity companies have been ensured that

they are not only made entitled to recover their

entire input costs, but also the profit in every

situation, while on the other hand, the

consumers must have to suffer the loss in

each and every circumstance, that too, by

retrospective imposition of FAS.

• The impugned law is causing perpetual loss to

the consumers by imposing fuel adjustment

surcharge in a retrospective manner, which is

in violation to their fundamental rights.

• The concept of predictability of the tariff which

is a universally accepted and required criterion

for the determination of tariff, has been

blatantly violated, ignored and destroyed.

• While narrating the history tariff

determination, the learned counsel maintained

that earlier on the tariff was determined and

notified on the yearly basis, which took care of

the preceding year’s differentia in a prospective

manner, thereafter, in the year 2006-07, bi-

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 29 of 67

annual fuel adjustment method was devised by

the NEPRA, which was also prospective in

nature. Then, the exercise was made on

quarterly basis but always in a prospective

manner. The learned counsel stressed that this

process gave a fair opportunity to the

electricity distributing companies to recover

their cost at one hand while on the other hand

gave an equal margin to the commercial

consumers to pass on the costs in their

production, manufacturing and sale of goods,

but through the introduction of impugned

proviso the whole scheme has been changed

and consumers’ rights have been usurped.

• The proviso is punitive, arbitrary,

expropriatory, confiscatory, vague, overboard,

unreasonable and violative of the fundamental

rights to carry on business or to hold

properties.

• It invites uncertainty and takes away the

concept of predictability of tariff, which is

cardinal principle of NEPRA Act. In this regard

the learned counsel referred Guidelines under

Rule-16 of the tariff standards and Procedure

Rules, 1998.

• A colorable piece of legislation, which not only

invites discrimination between the licensees

and consumers in general but also a direct

and personal burden on the industrial

consumers of electricity, which burden they

can neither pass on to their customers nor

include into the cost of production.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 30 of 67

• Determinations and notifications are illegal

due to the reason that NEPRA before passing

the notification was required to follow the

guidelines/directions issued in judgments

rendered by the honorable High Court in case

of ICC Textiles Limited Vs. WAPDA etc,

reported as 2009 CLC 1343 and by the court

of apex in Watan Party’s case reported as PLD

2011 SC 997. He maintained that NEPRA also

ignored the Hagler & Bailley Audit Report, and

instead of taking remedial measures at its own

end, it threw the entire burden on consumers

by levying exaggerated, unjustified and illegal

cost.

• Lastly, even otherwise, notifications for the

months of June and July, 2011 being issued

by the Federal Government are without lawful

authority, as by then the power to issue

notification was lied with NEPRA and not with

the Federal Government.

• In support of his arguments he has referred to

2012 SCMR 06; 2001 CLC 848; AIR 1967 MP

268; AIR 1961 SC 552; PLD 1993 SC 176;

2004 PTD 2267; PLD 2005 SC 193; PLD 1957

SC 09; PLD 2005 SC 873; PLD 2011 LAH 120;

2009 SCMR 187; PLD 2011 SC 44; 2011 PLC

(C.S) 7; 1991 CLC 13; 2002 SCMR 312; I998

SCMR 2268; 2007 SCMR 1835; PLD 1966 SC

628; 1997 SCMR 503; 1988 SCMR 715; 1993

SCMR 1905; PLD 2011 SC 997; 2009 CLC

1343.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 31 of 67

8. Muhammad Siddique Mughal, Advocate

Supreme Court, while appearing in 13 writ

petitions, by referring a plethora of case law from

numerous jurisdictions raised the following points:

• The principle against the retrospective

operation of the statutes is applicable with

more force in the case of fiscal statutes. Fiscal

legislation imposing liability is generally

subject to normal presumption that it is not

retrospective, reliance has been place upon

AIR 1954 SC 158.

• If monetary benefits accrued on account of the

retrospective operation has to be denied to the

beneficiaries, by the same token, monetary

benefits also enjoyed by the person adversely

affected by such retrospective operation should

not be taken away.

• It is well settled principle of law that the

doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the

State. It is also not in dispute that all

administrative orders ordinarily are to be

considered prospective in nature. The effect of

withdrawal of the relief with retrospective

operation will be to impose on the assessee a

huge accumulated financial burden for not

fault of the assessee and this is bound to

create serious financial problems for the

assessee. The respondent could not have

revised its price from a back date and

recovered it from innumerable customers to

whom its finished products were supplied at a

fixed price. The Government is competent to

resile from a promise even if no one is put in

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 32 of 67

any adverse situation which cannot be

rectified. The law does not authorize the State

to issue a direction with retrospective effect.

The authority therefore could only give

prospective effect to such directions.

• Even otherwise, it is consistently followed law

that what is directly forbidden cannot be

achieved indirectly and also that when a thing

is to be done in a particular manner it must be

done in that way and not otherwise, but the

impugned determinations and notifications

with regard to imposition of Fuel Adjustment

Surcharge are violative of these golden

principles of law. The learned counsel relied

upon 2010 SCMR 1437, PLD 1971 SC 61,

2005 PLC 634, AIR 1975 SC 2299.

• The consumers were not served with any

notice; however, the same could have easily

been served through monthly electricity bill.

Moreover, no written objections or comments

were ever called upon from the consumers

regarding the proposed adjustments, which is

violative of the principles of natural justice.

9. On the other hand, while vehemently refuting

the arguments advanced from petitioners’ side,

learned counsels for respondents Kh. Ahmed Tariq

Rahim and Sh. Muhammad Ali, Advocates for M/O

Water & Power, Islamabad. Mr. Shamshad Ullah

Cheema along with Mr. Muhammad Shafique, Legal

Advisor for NEPRA. Mr. Munawar-us-Salam and

Muhammad Usman Sahi, Advocate for LESCO.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 33 of 67

Syed Kazim Hussain Kazmi along with Muhammad

Siddique Malik, Director Legal (GEPCO) for GEPCO

& IESCO. Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman, Mr. Muhammad

Shakeel Abbasi, Mr. Muhammad Asif Khan and Mr.

Saeed Raza, Advocates for IESCO. Rana Asif Saeed,

Advocate on behalf of MEPCO, GEPCO, NTDC &

FESCO. Mr. Asad Jan, Advocate along with Mr.

Shakeel, AD Legal for PESCO. Mr. Noman Munir

Peracha, Advocate for HESCO. Mr. Muhammad

Khalid Zaman, Advocate for FESCO contested the

petition and took the stance of non-maintainability

of writ petition by raising preliminary objections,

which are as follows:

• No Board Resolutions conferring authority

upon the petitioners have been attached with

the petitions.

• Alternate remedies were available to Petitioner

under the 1998 Rules.

- Rule 3: File a petition for

adjustment/revision of Tariff.

- Rule 16(6): File a review petition before

NEPRA.

- In the presence of alternate remedies,

constitutional petitions are not maintainable.

Petitioners did not seek the remedy available to

them, hence cannot assail the same under

constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed

on PLD 1997 Lah 546, 2008 SCMR 308 and

2007 CLD 530.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 34 of 67

• The earlier mechanism for fuel price

adjustment was challenged, on the same

grounds and principles, before this Court, and

the same has been adjudicated upon. The

judgment is cited as 2010 YLR 2872.

• The determinations of NEPRA, and the modus

operandi of fuel price adjustment, were upheld

by this Court in 2010 YLR 2872; therefore,

instant petitions are hit by the principle of res-

judicata as well.

• The monthly price adjustment mechanism has

been in field since 2008. The same have been

paid by consumers. Furthermore, mechanism

for 2010-2011 was finalized as far back as 09-

12-2010. No objections were raised. Public

notice was given before finalizing tariff, as well

as before finalizing adjustment for specific

months; therefore, Petitioners are now

estopped from impugning the mechanism

which was finalized as far back as 09-12-2010.

Reliance was placed upon PLD 2004 Lahore

404.

• The questions in the petitions involve

determination of facts and call for detailed

factual inquiry relating to tariff determination

which is beyond the scope of the constitutional

jurisdiction of this Court.

• On merits they asserted that the bills did not

become a past and closed transaction.

Financial liability does not become past and

closed transaction. While referring to 1988

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 35 of 67

SCMR 715, PLD 1970 SC 514, 2003 CLD

1299, PLD 2003 Kar. 174, PLD 2004 SC 25he

maintained that the concept of ‘past and

closed transaction’ is based on the

interpretation that the transactions

contemplated had attained finality. Finality

was not attained in the present case.

Mechanism for adjustment was finalized as far

back as 09-12-2010. It involved adjustment of

fuel price variation on a monthly basis, which

is also warranted under the NEPRA Act.

Finality is only attained once the adjustments

have been made.

• The notifications were issued in consequence

of the Tariff Determination of NEPRA. The

same was never objected to. Such a

notification cannot be retrospective, as the fuel

price variation can only be concluded after the

month has passed. Reliance is placed on 2010

YLR 2872.

• No vested right accrued in favor of the

petitioners. The Petitioners were aware, or

should have been aware, of the fuel price

adjustment mechanism. The mechanism has

been used for previous years as well, from

2008 onwards. Reliance is placed on 1992

SCMR 2430 page 2433, 2010 YLR 2872, 2010

SCMR 517.

• All actions are transparent, and open to the

public. The determinations are made in light of

the facts and figures provided by the relevant

bodies. Hence, there is no discrimination.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 36 of 67

• Due process of law has been followed. Section

31(4) gives NEPRA the power to determine

tariffs. Under this power, NEPRA gave its Tariff

Determination dated 09-12-2010. The fuel

price adjustment mechanism was contained

therein. As per the proviso to section 31(4),

NEPRA had to revise tariff on account of fuel

price variation. This is what was done after

proper public notice and due

process.Furthermore, there was no delay.

Notices for hearing were published on a

monthly basis, and tariff was revised after

deliberations on the content placed before

NEPRA. Even otherwise, no penal

consequences provided hence the provision not

mandatory, but directory. Reliance was placed

upon PLD 1974 SC 13, 2000 SCMR 1305.

• Electricity falls under the Federal Legislative

List, and the Federal Government has the

power to pass legislation for matters related to

electricity. Therefore, the NEPRA Act and the

powers granted thereunder are valid law.

• The contention of the Petitioner that

amendment to section 31(4) and its proviso to

provide for monthly revision goes against the

principle of NEPRA Act to protect consumers

from monopolistic and oligopolistic prices, and

is ultra vires Article 18, it is contended that

there is no promotion of monopolistic

practices. In fact, revision of prices ensures

uniformity and accountability of pricing

structures. On the basis of the above

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 37 of 67

mentioned arguments learned counsel prayed

for the dismissal of the writ petitions.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and through their able assistance gone

through the statutory and precedent law.For better

understanding of the controversy raised in these

petitions, it would be quite relevant and

advantageous to give a brief history and hierarchy of

NEPRA. In 1992, the Government approved

WAPDAs Strategic Plan for Privatization of the

Pakistan Power Sector. A critical element of

strategic plan was the creation and establishment of

a regulatory authority to oversee the restructuring

process and to regulate monopolistic services. On

December 16, 1997, issue of the gazette of Pakistan

proclaimed the enactment of the Regulation of

Generation, Transmission and Distribution of

Electric Power Act, 1997, which had become

effective on 13 December 1997, National Electric

Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) has been

created to introduce transparent and judicious

economic regulation, based on sound commercial

principles, to the electric power sector of Pakistan.

NEPRA’s main responsibilities are to:

• Issue Licenses for generation, transmission

and distribution of electric power;

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 38 of 67

• Establish and enforce standards to ensure

quality and safety of operations and supply of

electric power to consumers;

• Determine tariffs for generation, transmission

and distribution of electric power

NEPRA is responsible for issuing licenses for

distribution of electric power under section 21 of the

Regulations of Generation, Transmission and

Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997. There are

five broad categories that consist of numerous

licensees. A brief illustration is envisaged here in

below:-

i) EX-WAPDA Distribution Companies

(DISCOs)- includes Islamabad Electric Supply

Company (IESCO), Peshawar Electric Supply

Company (PESCO), Lahore Electric Supply

Company (LESCO), etc.

ii) Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESCO)

iii) GENCOs-Thermal- Jamshoro Power Company

Limited (JPCL), GENCO-I, Central Power

Generation Company (CPGCL), GENCO-II,

Northern Power Generation Company Limited

(NPGCL), GENCO-III

iv) Independent Power Procedures (IPPs)-

NishatPower Limited, DHA Cogen Limited,

Attock Gen Limited, Sapphire Electric

Company Limited, etc.

v) Small Power Procedures (SPPs)- ICI Pakistan

Power Gen Ltd, Crescent Power Tech Ltd,

Kohinoor Power Company Ltd, Ibrahim Fibers

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 39 of 67

Ltd, Sitara Energy Ltd, Mehmood Textiles Mills

Ltd, etc.

The following chart describes the hierarchy of

National Electric Power Regulatory Authority:-

Federal Government

National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA)

Karachi Electric GENCO- IPPs SPPs

Supply Company Thermal (Independent (Small Power

Power Producers) Producers) WAPDA issues licenses

to Ex-WAPDA

Distribution Companies

QESCO PESCO IESCO LESCO

(Quetta)(Peshawar) (Islamabad) (Lahore)

Industrial and Residential Consumers

11. Before dilating upon the other issues, I deem it

appropriate to take up the issue of the maintainability of

the writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution.

In this regard the judgment of the honorable Supreme

Court of Pakistan passed in the case of Muhammad

Yasin versus Federation of Pakistan, reported as PLD

2012 SC 132, wherein appointment of Mr. Touqeer Sadiq

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 40 of 67

as Chairman of the regulatory authority i.e OGRA was set

aside, has served as a lightship for me. The honorable

Supreme Court has elaborately set forth certain

guidelines for the high courts in terms of Article-189 of

the Constitution which are fully attracted in the instant

case. The honorable Supreme Court held as follows:

“At the end of this part of our opinion, we can now summarize our three-step rationale for maintaining the present petition. Firstly, when understood correctly, a number of Articles of the Constitution make it clear that it is not silent about the economic life of the nation and the concomitant fundamental rights of its citizens; secondly, we are clear that there is an ever-greater nexus between the proper and independent functioning of the regulatory bodies and economic life of the nation and its citizens and that this nexus is fully recognized by the Legislature in its use of language employed by the Ordinance in the provisions referred to above; and finally, there can be no doubt that regulatory bodies can function competently and independently only once their autonomy is ensured through enforcement of the legal checks upon appointments to important positions therein. When these three points are fully appreciated, it becomes clear that the validity of the process of appointment of the Chairman, OGRA is indeed a matter of public importance which has a direct linkage with the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan, and thus warrants the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 184 (3) supra. It is possible, however, that if similar cases arise in future, the High Courts may be in a position to decide the same by applying the principles of law enunciated in this judgment, in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution.”

In paras-13 & 14 of the verdict (supra) the honorable

Supreme Court while elaborating the fundamental rights

of the citizens in connection with the functions and

powers of the regulatory authorities, has held:

“When we see the Constitution in this manner, we are brought to the unavoidable conclusion that it is a part of

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 41 of 67

the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan that they be governed by a State which provides effective safeguards for their economic well-being; a State which protects inter alia, the belongings and assets of the State and its citizens from waste and malversation. Contrary to what some commentators seem to believe, our Constitution is not silent on issues, which affect the economic life of the nation and its citizens. It contains a whole range of Articles which have a direct nexus with good economic governance and fundamental rights. At the very beginning in Article 3 there is, for instance, an oft-forgotten but eloquently stated directive “The State shall ensure that elimination of all forms of exploitation and the gradual fulfillment of the fundamental principle, from each according to his ability to each according to his work”. Then there is Article 4, which guarantees the protection of law, not just for life and liberty, but also for the body and property of citizens. Furthermore, there is a whole range of fundamental rights, such as the right to life (Article 9), the universal and non-derogable right to a life of dignity (Article-14), the right to engage in business (Article 25) which has clear economic ramifications. When these articles are read together, we cannot escape the conclusion that the Constitution envisages a political dispensation where good economic governance is a right of the people of Pakistan which they cannot be deprived of. Articles, Justice Fazal Karim a former Judge of this Court and the nation’s leading legal academic and author, concludes with a telling comment from which we seek guidance: “In short, Article 18 and the rights guaranteed by it are concerned with the economic life of the nation and its citizens.” (emphasis supplied) p. 718. The direct nexus between the appointment of Chairman, OGRA and the other fundamental rights enumerated above can now be elaborated as the Second step of our reasoning.

14. It needs to be understood that in our present context, the economic life of the nation and its citizens, is inextricably linked with the proper functioning of regulatory bodies such as OGRA. To fully appreciate this, we may take stock of some recent developments, which have deepened the connection between the proper ‘effective and efficient’ functioning of regulatory bodies and the fundamental rights of citizens. In the past, particularly during the 1970’s, direct State ownership and management of business enterprises was a policy objective of the Government. More recently, however, such State involvement has receded through privatization

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 42 of 67

of many State owned enterprises and through entrustment of activities (which hitherto were undertaken by the State) to companies initially owned by the State but slated for disinvestment through privatization. The most relevant example of this, in the context of the present case is the creation of the Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd. It has been incorporated under the Companies ordinance, 1984 pursuant to the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (Re-organization) Ordinance 2001. In view of this increasing trend towards privatization, regulation has emerged as perhaps the single most important function of the State in the sphere of macro-economics.

I find it appropriate to borrow the words of wisdom from

Honorable Supreme Court, on the powers of superior

courts on the judicial review.A Larger Bench of the

honorable Supreme Court in 2011 PLC (CS) 1076 (Hajj

Corruption case) held that:

“20. The judiciary including the High Courts and the Supreme Court is bound to protect and preserve the Constitution as well as to enforce fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution either individually or collectively, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it either under Article 199 or 184(3) of the Constitution. We are fully cognizant of our jurisdiction; it is one of the functions of the judicial functionaries to decide the matters strictly in accordance with the Constitution and law. We are conscious of our jurisdiction, and exercise the same with judicial restraint. But such restraint cannot be exercised at the cost of rights of the citizens to deny justice to them.

The scheme of the constitution makes it obligatory on the part of superior Courts to interpret constitution, law and enforce fundamental rights. There is no cavil with the proposition that ultimate arbiter is the Court which is the custodian of the Constitution, as it has been noted herein before and without repeating the same, this Court had initiated proceedings in the instant case as is evident from the detailed facts and circumstances noted hereinabove to ensure that corruption and corrupt practices by which the Hujjaj were looted and robed has brought bad name to the country.

23. This Court is of the considered view that a democratic system must prevail in the Country which aspect has been highlighted in the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association’s Case (PLD 2009 SC 879) wherein all the actions of the military dictator were declared unconstitutional besides the elections held in February, 2008 was also under threat of being declared illegal were validated to promote will of the electorate. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, who was not recognized as lawful Chief

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 43 of 67

Justice but the oath he administered to the President of Pakistan was declared valid by this Court in order to save the system by holding inter alia as under: -

191. This Court hopes that all institutions, on the well known principles of good governance, and without transgressing their constitutional bounds, will endeavor to eradicate corruption and self enrichment, and will devote themselves to the service of the people. Needless to add that the Courts will, at all times, remain vigilant in this behalf and will always come to the rescue of any beleaguered citizen or class of citizens whenever and wherever an occasion ‘arises’.”

As this proposition has been exhaustively discussed,

comprehensively elaborated and thoroughly settled in a

variety of cases. It would be advantageous to reproduce

following passages from a recent judgment of the

honorable Supreme Court i.e. Watan Party V. Federation

of Pakistan, PLD 2012 SC 292 [Memogate case]:

Indisputably, if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed; could come to or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters the Court would be justified in interfering with the same. [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahindra (AIR 1984 SC 1182)]. The exercise of constitutional powers by the High Court and the Supreme Court is categorized as power of judicial review. Every executive or administrative action of the State or other statutory or public bodies is open to judicial scrutiny and the High Court or the Supreme Court can, in exercise of the power of judicial review under the Constitution, quash the executive action or decision which is contrary to law or is violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. With the expanding horizon of Articles dealing with Fundamental Rights, every executive action of the Government or other public bodies, if arbitrary, unreasonable or contrary to law, is now amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Superior Courts and can be validly scrutinized on the touchstone of the Constitutional mandates. [Common Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of India (AIR 1999 SC 2979)]. In the case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India [AIR 1992 SC 248 = 1991 SCR (1) Supl. 251], the Court while taking up the issues of healthcare and compensation to the victims, supervised the distribution of the money among the victims of Bhopal gas tragedy and monitored the hospitals set up to treat the victims.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 44 of 67

9. Superior Court's supervisory jurisdiction of judicial review is invoked by an aggrieved party in myriad cases. High Courts in India are empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise judicial review to correct administrative decisions and under this jurisdiction High Court can issue to any person or authority, any direction or order or writs for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. The jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is very wide. However, it is an accepted principle that this is a public law remedy and it is available against a body or person performing public law function. Before considering the scope and ambit of public law remedy in the light of certain English decisions, it is worthwhile to remember the words of Subha Rao J. expressed in relation to the powers conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in Dwarkanath vs. Income Tax Officer 1965 Indlaw SC 125 at pages 540-41:

"This article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression "nature", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Court to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with the unitary form of Government into a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself..."

Similarly in case of Munir Hussain Bhatti V. Sindh High

Court Bar Association, PLD 2011 SC 407, the honorable

Supreme Court held:

65. A classical analysis of the grounds on which

administrative decisions are subjected to judicial review was

presented in an English case, Council of Civil Service Union v.

Minister, by Lord Diplock. This analysis has also been

frequently adverted to in our jurisprudence on the judicial

review of executive action. A recent instance can be found in

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 45 of 67

the opinion of Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J. in the case of the Chief

Justice of Pakistan, supra at pages 232 to 238. The analysis

in the case of the Civil Service Union supra is equally

applicable to the circumstances of these petitions. Lord

Diplock stated three grounds for exercise of the Court’s power

of judicial review. These are ‘illegality’, ‘irrationality’ and

‘procedural impropriety.’ Council of Civil Service Union v.

Minister ([1984] 3 All ER 935, 950-952).What is important for

deciding the present petitions is the scope and nature of

‘illegality’, which, in the language of the aforesaid case, is

measured on the consideration “… that the decision-maker

must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-

making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or

not is par-excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in

the event of dispute, by those persons - the Judges by whom

judicial power of the State is exercisable” (ibid). Thus any

decision based on an incorrect understanding of the law that

regulates the decision-maker’s decision-making power, would

be an illegal decision, and it could be corrected through

judicial review. What must be emphasized here is that in

disputed cases, it is for the Courts to definitively interpret the

law and thereafter to test the administrative decision on the

touchstone of the law so interpreted.

In the case of Watan Party and another Vs. Federation of

Pakistan (Law and Order in Karachi) PLD 2011 SC 997, it

has been held:

“2. This aspect of the Islamic teachings, as well finds its

reflection in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan 1973. The Constitution, in its very Preamble,

postulates that the principles of democracy, freedom, equality,

tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be

fully observed and the fundamental rights, including equality

of status, of opportunity and before the law, social, economic

and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression,

belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and

public morality; shall be fully guaranteed. These very

principles have been made a substantive part of the

Constitution under Article 2A. Thus, it is the duty of the State

to protect and safeguard all these Fundamental Rights

including the right to life and liberty as envisaged by Article 9

of the Constitution, which has been interpreted by this Court

in Shehla Zia’s case (PLD 1994 SC 693) as under: -

“Article 9 of the Constitution provides that no person

shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance

with law. The word "life" is very significant as it covers

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 46 of 67

all facts of human existence. The word "life" has not

been defined in the Constitution but it does not mean

nor can it be restricted only to the vegetative or animal

life or mere existence from conception to death. Life

includes all such amenities and facilities which a

person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with

dignity, legally and constitutionally.

The instances are not few when the Honorable Supreme

Court of Pakistan has held that the right to life includes

the right to live with human dignity and termed it a

fundamental right as mandated under the Constitution of

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, more particularly

Articles 9 and 10 thereof. In a recent case of Alleged

Corruption in Rental Power Plants etc., reported as 2012

SCMR 773, the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan

has held:

“The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan mandates that State shall exercise its

powers and authority through chosen

representatives of the people. A democratic order

in place, through the representatives of people,

being the members of Parliament, obligates the

elected representatives to fulfill their

commitments bestowed upon them under the

Constitution, and in their representative capacity,

they are bound to perform their functions

honestly, to the best of their ability, faithfully, in

accordance with the Constitution and the law as

well as the Rules of the Assembly, and always in

the interest of sovereignty, integrity, solidarity,

well being and prosperity of Pakistan. Such a

binding force of the Constitution commands them

to ensure well being and prosperity of Pakistan,

so whenever they feel threat to the well being of

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 47 of 67

the people of Pakistan for any reason, they are

bound to preserve the same.”

“It is to be clarified that the Government of the

day under Article 29 read with Article 2A of the

Constitution is bound to formulate policies for the

promotion of social and economic well being of the

people, which includes provision of facilities to the

citizens for work and adequate livelihood with a

reasonable rest and leisure, etc.

Energy/electricity is essentially one of the

significant facilities required by the citizens for

manifold purposes, namely, uplifting of their

social and economic status. Non-supply of

electricity to the citizen regularly, is tantamount to

depriving them of one of the essentials of the life

including the security of economic activities,

which are relatable to their fundamental rights

protected under Articles 9 and 14 of the

Constitution. In the cases of the Bank of Punjab v.

Haris Steel Industries (PLD 2010 SC 1109),

Liaqat Hussain v. The Federation of Pakistan

(Constitution Petition No.50/2011), In Re: Human

Rights Case regarding fast food chain in F-9 Park

(PLD 2010 SC 759), In Re: SMC No.13/2009

(Case regarding Multi-Professional Housing

Schemes) (PLD 2011 SC 619) and Shehla Zia v.

WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693), Article 9 has been

interpreted and its scope has been enlarged to

each and every aspect of human life. Therefore,

whenever a policy is framed with reference to

uplifting the socio-economic conditions of the

citizens, object should be to ensure enforcement

of their fundamental rights.”

12. Seeking guidance from the above referred

dictums of the honorable Supreme Court, I am of

the considered opinion that the petitions are

maintainable and this court has ample powers

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 48 of 67

under the constitution to exercise the power of

judicial review in the matter as the matter relates to

the fixation of (FPA) tariff and prices for consumers

and is a part of regulatory function of the NEPRA

and has a direct connection with the economic well-

being of the people of Pakistan.

13. Before proceeding further, I find it

appropriate to mention relevant provisions of

NEPRA, 1997. Section 31 deals with tariffs, and

Sub-section (4) lay down the procedure of issuance

of notifications by the federal government regarding

the tariff determined in accordance with the said

provision. Section 32 (1)mandates that the Authority

shall, within 18 months from the commencement of

this Act prescribe procedures and standards for the

Authority’s prior approval of transmission

companies and distribution companies investment

and power acquisition programs. Section 46

stipulates Rules and Sub-section (2)(d) deals with

determination of rates, fees, charges and others

term and condition of licenses; and (f) procedure for

resolving disputes amongst the licensees and

consumers.

National Electric Power Regulatory Authority

(Tariff Standards and Procedure) Rules, 1998

commenced by virtue of section 46 of the 1997 Act.

o Rule 2(m)- defines tariff

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 49 of 67

o Rule 3- filing of petitions and communication;

o Rule 4(1)- Admission of petition

o Rule 4(7)- Authority may, while admitting the petition

allow immediate application of proposed tariff Subject to

an order for refund for protection of consumers

o Rule 12- Rulings of the presiding officer. Rule 12(1) to (4)

o Rule 14- Tentative opinions

o Rule 16- Decision by the Authority. Rule 16(2), (6), (11)

o Rule 18- Filing of tariff

o Rule 21 (d)- Notice of general rate changes to the

customers of licensees

For the purposes of the instant petitions, section 31,

more particularly, section 31(4) is most important. Following

amendments were made in section 31 of NEPRA Act 1997 till

to date:

Section 31 Of Act – dated 16-12-1997

Section 31 Of Act – new amendment dated : 31-07-2009 (through Ordinance which stood lapse)

Section 31 Of Act –further amendment dated: 29-09-2011

Tariff. (1)- As soon as may been, but not later than six months from the commencement of this Act , the Authority shall the determine and prescribe procedures and standards for determination, modification or revision of rates, charges and terms and conditions for the generation of electric power , transmission, interconnection, distribution services and power sales to consumers by licensees and until such procedures and standards are prescribe, the Authority shall determine, modify or revise such rates, charges and terms and conditions in accordance with the directions issued by the federal government. (2)- The Authority while determining the standards referred to in sub-section (1) shall –

a) Protect consumers against monopolistic and oligopolistic prices;

b) Keep in view the research,

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 50 of 67

development and capital investment programs costs of licensees;

c) Encourage efficiency in licensees operations and quality of service;

d) Encourage economic efficiency in the electric power industry;

e) Keep in view the economic and social policy objective of the federal government; and

f) Determine tariff so as to eliminate exploitation and minimize economic distortion

(3)- The procedures established under sub-section (1) shall include-

a) Time frame for decisions by the authority on tariff applications;

b) Opportunity for customers and other interested parties to participate meaningfully in the tariff approval process; and

c) Protection for refund, if any. To customers while tariff decision is pending

(4)- Notification of the Authority’s approved tariff, rates, charges and other term and conditions for the supply of electric power services by generation, transmission and distribution companies shall be made, in the official gazette by the federal government upon the intimation by the Authority; Provided that the federal government may, as soon as may be, but not later than 15 days of receipt of Authority’s intimation, require the Authority to consider its determination of such tariff, rates, charges and other terms and condition whereupon the Authority

In sub-section (4), - i. For the word

“Authority:”, at the end, the words, brackets, figure and letter “ Authority within period of 15 days of such intimation except where the federal government refers the matter to the Authority for reconsideration under sub-section (4A)” shall be substituted ; and

ii. “ Provided further that the Authority shall, on a monthly basis, review and revise the approved tariff on account of

In the said Act, in section 31 , in sub-section (4) for the second proviso the following shall be substituted, namely “Provided further that the Authority may, on a monthly basis and do not later than a period of 7 days make adjustment in the approved tariff on account of, any variation in the fuel charges and, policy guideline as the federal government may issue and , notify the tariff so adjusted in the official Gazette.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 51 of 67

shall, within 15 days, determine these anew after reconsideration and intimate the same to the federal government;

any variation in the fuel charges and policy guidelines to be issued by the federal; government in this behalf and recommend the r=tariff so revised to the federal government for the notification in the official gazette.”;and

iii. After sub-section (4) amended as aforesaid, the following new sub-sections shall be inserted, namely:-

“(4A) The federal government may, as soon as possible but not later than 15 days of receipt of the Authority’s intimation require the Authority’s to reconsider its determination of tariff, rates, charges and other terms and conditions made under sub-section (1) and the Authority shall reconsider and determine the same anew within a period of 15 days from the date of reference by the federal government” (4B) within 3 days of the expiry of the period available to the Authority under sub-section(4A), the federal government shall notify in the official Gazette,

a) The tariff reconsidered and determined by the Authority under sub-section (4A) if available; or

b) Where the Authority has not concluded the reconsideration, the tariff determined by the Authority under sub-section(1)

“(4C) not withstanding anything contained in this

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 52 of 67

section, the Authority shall continue to conclude its reconsideration under section(4A) and the effect of such reconsideration shall be adjusted by the Authority in the tariff, rates, charges or other terms and conditions determined by it under sub-section (1) for the subsequent period”

It is evident from section 31(4) of the Act 1997, the federal

government has a margin of 15 days to approve the

determination/assessment and notify the official gazette for any

charges to be imposed in the billing demand of next month.

Law was amended on 29-09-2011. The power to notify in the

official gazette is now vested with the Authority.

14. In my view following are the justifiable issues which

require determination:

i) Whether proviso to section 31 (4) of the NEPRA Act, 1997 is ultra vires to the constitution?

ii) Whether Fuel Adjustment Surcharge can be levied and demanded with retrospective effect?

iii) Whether on expiry of stipulated period of 15 days, provided under section 31 (4) of the NEPRA Act, Authority vests with power to levy and demand Fuel Adjustment Surcharge as part of tarrif?

iv) Whether scope of Fuel Adjustment Surcharge can be expanded/ enhanced to provide cover to the elements/factors of mismanagement, bad governance, inefficiency theft, inability to recover across the board? v) Whether already determined Tariff can be varied in the name of fuel adjustment?

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 53 of 67

15. I may deal to first point, as to whether proviso to section 31 (4) of NEPRA Act is ultra vires to the constitution or not?

For convenience Section 31 with inserted

proviso is being reproduced here in below:

“Tariff: (1)- As soon as may been, but not later than six

months from the commencement of this Act, the Authority

shall determine and prescribe procedures and standards for

determination, modification or revision of rates, charges

and terms and conditions for the generation of electric

power , transmission, interconnection, distribution services

and power sales to consumers by licensees and until such

procedures and standards are prescribe, the Authority shall

determine, modify or revise such rates, charges and terms

and conditions in accordance with the directions issued by

the federal government.

(2)- The Authority while determining the standards referred to in sub-section (1) shall

a) Protect consumers against monopolistic and oligopolistic prices; b) Keep in view the research, development and capital investment programs costs of licensees; c) Encourage efficiency in licensees operations and quality of service; d) Encourage economic efficiency in the electric power industry; e) Keep in view the economic and social policy objective of the federal government; and f) Determine tariff so as to eliminate exploitation and minimize economic distortion.

(3)- The procedures established under sub-section (1) shall

include-

a) Time frame for decisions by the authority on tariff applications; b) Opportunity for customers and other interested parties to participate meaningfully in the tariff approval process; and c) Protection for refund, if any. To customers while tariff decision is pending

(4)- Notification of the Authority’s approved tariff, rates,

charges and other term and conditions for the supply of

electric power services by generation, transmission and

distribution companies shall be made, in the official gazette

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 54 of 67

by the federal government upon the intimation by the

Authority;

Provided that the federal government may, as soon as may

be, but not later than 15 days of receipt of Authority’s

intimation, require the Authority to consider its

determination of such tariff, rates, charges and other terms

and condition whereupon the Authority shall, within 15

days, determine these anew after reconsideration and

intimate the same to the federal government;

Provided further that the Authority may, on a monthly basis

and not later than a period of 7 days, make adjustments in

the approved tariff on account of, any variation in the fuel

charges and, policy guidelines as the federal government

may issue and, notify the tariff so adjusted in the official

Gazette.

(5)- Each distribution company shall pay to the Federal

Government such surcharge as the Federal government,

from time to time, notify in respect of each unit of electric

power sold to the consumers and any amount paid under

this sub-section shall be considered as a cost incurred by

the distribution company to be included in the tariff

determined by the authority.”

There is no cavil to the proposition that legislator in

its wisdom can bring certain amendments in the Statute

and these amendment are fully protected unless found to

be offensive to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the

constitution. Arbitrary exercise of authority and perverse

orders passed by the Authority, competent to pass order

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 55 of 67

does not render the provision ultra vires to the

Constitution. Man made laws are recurring ones, therefore,

in order to bring the law inconformity with the new or

changed situation is the right of legislator in which no

interference can be made except on the touchstone of

Article 8 of the constitution, therefore, plea of petitioner to

declare the inserted provision to section 31 (4) cannot be

acceded to as nothing unconstitutional for issuance of

declaration of ultra vires has been pointed.

16. Now, I would like to compass may view on the

second point i.e. as to whether Fuel Adjustment Surcharge

can be levied and demanded with retrospective effect or

not? My observations are as under:-

“There is no doubt that Government has the

authority to levy tax and can demand surcharge but

question arises is that, whether any tax payer can be taken

by surprise and require to adjust cost of any product,

which had already been reached to consumer? Answer to

this question is a big NO, as it looks not only ridiculous but

unjust as well. The constitution of the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan does not allow any sort of exploitation and permit

economic and social wrongs. It is provided in the law that

Authority empowered to make adjustment, due to variance

in the fuel prices and period for this purpose has been

prescribed as 15 days. Under the Rules, Authority is

empowered to allow interim levy subject to final

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 56 of 67

determination. In the fiscal statutes, interpretation in

favour of tax payer has to be made, instead of harsh and

hostile explanation to justify illegal act. The provision of

sub-section 2 of section 31 makes it obligatory upon the

regulatory authority to “Protect consumers against

monopolistic and oligopolistic prices; Encourage

efficiency in licensees operations and quality of

service; Encourage economic efficiency in the electric

power industry; Keep in view the economic and social

policy objective of the federal government; and

Determine tariff so as to eliminate exploitation and

minimize economic distortion. These are the mandatory

requirements of law and each word of the same

emphatically obliges the authority to determine rates or

charges by keeping in view the interest of the consumer. To

my mind, retrospective demand of surcharge from the

consumers, who are citizens of this country, is the worst

kind of exploitation. The situation becomes double

aggravated when the charge involves essential commodity

like electricity which is a basic and important ingredient of

right to life and right to live with dignity in any civilized

society, therefore, relying upon the case law cited by the

learned counsel for the petitioners at bar, the Levy and

demand of Fuel Adjustment Charges as arrears with

retrospective effect is declared as unconstitutional,

besides the law applicable, principles of natural justice and

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 57 of 67

dictums laid down by the superior courts of the country. I

am fortified in my opinion by the judgments relied by the

learned counsel for Petitioners, mentioned in their

arguments, more particularly 2005 SCMR 492 titled Govt.

of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Commerce Vs. M/s

Village Development Organization.

17. Coming to third issue as to whether on expiry of

stipulated period of 15 days, provided under section 31 (4)

of the NEPRA Act, authority vests with power to levy and

demand fuel adjustment surcharge?

Section-31(4) as amended up to date provides a

comprehensive mechanism for the determination of tariff,

which can be summarized as under:-

i) The tariff, rate, charges and other terms of

condition of for the supply of electric power

services by generation, distribution and

transmission companies shall be approved by

the authority.

ii) Such approval shall be made by the authority

through notification.

iii) Such notification shall be issued by the

Federal Government in official gazette.

iv) The authority shall intimate the Federal

Government about the determination of the

tariff, rates and charges to Federal

Government

v) Federal Government within a period of 15 days

of receipt of authority intimation may require it

to reconsider the determination made by it.

vi) The authority may reconsider to the

determination within a period of 15 days.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 58 of 67

vii) The authority may on a monthly basis and do

not later than a period of 7 days make

adjustment in the approved tariff on account

of any variation in the fuel charges and policy

guideline.

A bare perusal of the above makes it

abundantly clear that the determination of tariffs,

rates, charges or terms and conditions are subject to

“time-limits”. The legislature in its wisdom has laid

down specific time period of 15 days for Federal

Government for consideration of determination

intimated by the authority and then a further period of

15 days is prescribed for reconsideration of the

determination by the authority if the Federal

Government requires so on its consideration of the

tariff determined by the authority. To my mind, this

time frame provided in the legislation is meaningful,

purposive and in consonance with the spirit of law as

envisaged in section 31(2) supra. By devising a process

bound by time limits to perform certain acts the

legislature, in fact, has blocked the way for any

arbitrariness, executive whims, and extraneous

considerations, which are ordinarily bound to occur

due to laxity of time. This time-bound process has

further impeded the way to charge retrospectively from

the consumers. Here, I am not in agreement with the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of NEPRA that the

billing from consumers is always retrospective as no

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 59 of 67

doubt the electricity bills are normally sent at the close

of billing month but the bills are made on the basis of

tariff which is required to be determined and made

public for inviting objections, obviously, prior to the

consumption. It seems that authorities failed to make a

distinction between a bill and tariff. There is no cavil

to the proposition that the bill is charged after

consumption which is a retrospective act but the tariff

on the basis of which the bill is charged is always

prospective.

The frequent variations in the fuel charges affecting

the cost of the electricity generation obviously is an

important phenomena in determination of the tariff. In

order to cope with this situation an amendment was

introduced by adding impugned proviso to the section

31 (4). Now, due to insertion of the new proviso the

authority may on a monthly basis and do not later

than a period of 7 days make adjustment in the

approved tariff on account of any variation in the

fuel charges and policy guideline. Although the

authority has been mandated to make adjustment in

the approved tariff on account of variations in fuel

charges but any such adjustment is curtailed by the

words and figure “do not later than a period of 7

days”, therefore, any variation in the tariff beyond the

period of 7 days, on the face of it, is without any legal

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 60 of 67

force. While narrating the submissions of the learned

counsels for the petitioners, I have given a chart

specifying the date on which the fuel price adjustment

was determined and the month for which it was made.

The chart is reproduced here once again which shows

that the determination for the month of August, 2011

was made on 28.02.2012 after THE LAPSE OF ALMOST

7 MONTHS. So is the position with regard to remaining

determinations which were made between 5 to 8

months.

SRO No & Determination date

Date of Notification

Billing Month implementing the Notification

Corresponding month

Difference

202(1)/2012 dated 28.02.2012

29.02.2012 March, 2012 August, 2011 7 Months

374(1)/2012 dated 17.04.2012

17.04.2012 May, 2012 September, 2011

7 Months

447(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012

03.05.2012 June, 2012 October, 2011 8 Months

448(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012

03.05.2012 July, 2012 November, 2011

8 Months

449(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012

03.05.2012 July, 2012 December, 2011

7 Months

450(1)/2012 dated 02.05.2012

03.05.2012 August, 2012 January, 2012

7 Months

523(1)/2012 dated 18.05.2012

22.05.2012 September,2012

February, 2012

6 Months

524(1)/2012 dated 18.05.2012

22.05.2012 October, 2012 March, 2012 6 Months

So the newly inserted proviso in no way

authorizes the authority to determine the variations, if

any, after a lapse of several months, instead of period

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 61 of 67

of specific days prescribed under the law. In view of the

above discussion, I am inclined to hold that the act of

the authorities to determine and levy the fuel

adjustment surcharge vide impugned notifications is

illegal, unlawful, void, arbitrary, perverse, whimsical,

exploitative, and against the very concept of due

process of law, hence are set aside.

18. Now coming to next preposition WHETHER

scope of Fuel Adjustment Surcharge can be expended/

enhanced to provide cover to the elements/factors of

mismanagement, bad governance, inefficiency, theft,

inability to recover across the board?

From the plain language of the proviso, it is

clear that the Fuel Adjustment Surcharge is meant to

adjust the fuel charges variations only. Any loss on

account of mismanagement, bad governance,

inefficiency, theft and inability to recover across the

board is outside the scope, purview and mandate of the

proviso to section 31(4) of the Act. Even otherwise, the

regulatory authorities like NEPRA, OGRA, PEMRA,

SECP, PTA and CCP have primarily been created in

order to ensure good governance in major economic

sectors of the country. The good governance, efficient

management, and credible functioning of the regulatory

authorities, has direct nexus with the public good and

public welfare. It would be quite outlandish and against

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 62 of 67

the very object of the establishment of the regularity

authorities if such authorities are let free to charge the

citizens of the country on account of their own failures,

negligence, mismanagement and corruption. The tariff

already includes the cost of management; therefore, it

would be an unjustified burden on the citizens who are

already saddled with heavy taxes on account of

mismanagement in tariff. Charging the tax-payers

again for the bad governance in the garb of fuel

adjustment is not only illegitimate but also amounts to

pave way for corruption in regulatory authorities as the

person at the helm of affairs would easily recover their

losses and deficits occurring on account of their own

negligence or corruption and corrupt practices, by

imposing fuel adjustment surcharge on citizens who

have no fault of theirs. Such demand, imposition or

levy of charge is in direct violation of the fundamental

rights of the citizens. In case of Muhammad Yasin

supra, the honorable Supreme Court has held that

“any increase in prices, which results from lack of

competence or integrity or because of inefficient

regulation would result in depriving the citizens of

their fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 9,

14, 18, 23, and 24 of the Constitution because the

scales would impermissibly stand tilted against

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 63 of 67

the citizens and in favor of those engaged in

regulated activities”. It is settled principle of law

that what cannot be achieved directly, cannot be

achieved indirectly. Fiscal laws are required to be

interpreted strictly, and when the situation is so that

the authorities throw their own blame on the ordinary

citizens, the duty of the court becomes more onerous

and all doors leading to arbitrary exercise of authority

must be shut so vigorously that no nasty air of

injustice, corruption and discrimination can pass

through. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the

considered opinion that the scope of levy/demand of

Fuel Adjustment Charges cannot be expanded and has

to remain within the variations in the prices of fuel.

19. Lastly, whether already determined Tariff can

be varied in the name of fuel adjustment?

While dealing the issue of ultra vires of the

impugned legislation, I have already held that the

second proviso to section 31(4) as substituted through

Act XVIII of 2011 is intra-vires. However, while dealing

with second proposition I have expressed my opinion

that Fuel Adjustment Surcharge cannot be levied with

retrospective effect. While dilating upon the third

question my view was that the determination beyond

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 64 of 67

the period prescribed under the law is illegal. While

propounding my analysis to the forth proposition, I

have laid down that the canvas of the fuel adjustment

charges cannot be expanded except the variations in

fuel prices. In the light of what has been discussed

earlier my answer to the last question is that the tariff

cannot be varied except by strictly adhering to the

procedure mandated in the provision of section 31 of

the Act itself. The authority is obliged to determine the

tariff on account of fuel variance by following the

fundamental principles of law which mandate that

a) the authority cannot determine the tariff with

retrospective effect; b) cannot make the determination

beyond the period prescribed under the second proviso;

and c) no other factors except variations in fuel prices

are to be kept in consideration of adjustment.

Judgments referred by the learned counsel for

respondents are not applicable to the present issue,

with utmost respect cannot be relied upon.

20. Before parting with this judgment, I am of the

view that the second proviso to section 31(4) as

substituted through Act XVIII of 2011 is not a good

piece of draftsmanship. A bare perusal of the same

makes it abundantly clear that it is vague, ambiguous

and confusing. The proviso is as follows:

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 65 of 67

“Provided further that the Authority may, on a

monthly basis and not later than a period of 7

days, make adjustments in the approved tariff on

account of, any variation in the fuel charges and,

policy guidelines as the federal government may

issue and, notify the tariff so adjusted in the official

Gazette”. (Emphasis added)

The entire provision of section 31 of the Act

including the second proviso, does not anywhere

stipulate as to when the period of 7 days commences?

Either it commences at the start of the month or at the

end of the month or after the expiry of the month? Even

the phrase “monthly basis” is not clear and no criteria

for the determination of fuel adjustment on monthly

basis has been provided and it has been left to the

sweet will of the authority. For example, if the variation

in the fuel charges takes place on 21st of a month, then

how the FAS would be calculated? Would it be

calculated from the start of that month or from 21st of

that month or from the month following that month? If

the month on 21st day of which the variation in fuel

charges takes place is calculated as a whole, then the

consumers would unjustifiably be burdened for the

charges for first 20 days of that month for which no

variation in fuel prices took place and the authority

and distributor would get an illegitimate advantage,

obviously, through abuse of process of law. The

authority would say that it would be calculated on the

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 66 of 67

basis of some specific formula but the question

remains that the legislation is silent in this regard and

fiscal liabilities cannot be imposed on the basis of some

vague assertions and determinations. Moreover, the

proviso does not disclose any criteria, procedure and

mannerism for the actual determination, assessment

and calculation of the ‘adjustment’. Furthermore, the

proviso seems to be an independent section within the

section to which it is a proviso, thus making the

determination of tariff complicated, and uncertain. To

my estimation, the proviso needs to be suitably

amended:

i) To provide specifically when the period of 7 days

would commence,

ii) To make clear the meaning of “month” for the

purposes of fuel adjustment,

iii) To lay down specific criteria and procedure for

determination and adjustment of variations in fuel

prices, and

iv) To make it consistent with the overall scheme of the

Act, more particularly, section 31 of the Act.

W.P No.2972/2011 Page 67 of 67

21. These are the reasons for my short order dated

24.10.2012.

22. Copy of this judgement be sent to the Secretary,

Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs,

Islamabad and Secretary, Law & Justice Commission of

Pakistan.

(SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI) JUDGE

Approved for Reporting.

“Waqar Ahmed”