Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan on Tuesday issued notices to the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) and other respondents while hearing the federal government’s petition challenging the judgments of the Sindh High Court and the Lahore High Court regarding the levy imposed on private power plants.
FCCP issues notices to NEPRA, others in private power plants levy case
ISLAMABAD, Jun 30 (APP): Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan on Tuesday issued notices to the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) and other respondents while hearing the federal government’s petition challenging the judgments of the Sindh High Court and the Lahore High Court regarding the levy imposed on private power plants.
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Aamer Farooq heard the case.
During the proceedings, Justice Aamer Farooq raised several key questions, asking when the government had issued the lev notification and whether the regulator determined the power generation cost of each plant. He also inquired whether all private power plants were subject to the same tariff or whether each plant had a separately determined tariff.
Counsel for the companies informed the court that NEPRA determines a separate tariff for each power plant. He argued that the levy notification had been issued in March and, therefore, could not be applied retrospectively to the month of February. He further submitted that the government had not placed on record any document explaining the basis on which the levy had been calculated.
Justice Aamer Farooq remarked that the official responsible for drafting the notification should be asked to explain it. He further asked whether the summary, drafting record and other relevant documents had been placed before the high court.
Observing that those documents had not been produced before the Constitutional Bench either, Justice Farooq remarked that when the basic record itself was unavailable, it was difficult for the court to examine the matter. He also observed that a notification issued in March could not be used to recover a levy for the preceding month of February.
The judge further asked whether NEPRA had been made a party to the proceedings. Counsel for the companies replied that NEPRA had been impleaded, but no counsel had appeared on its behalf.
After the hearing, the Constitutional Bench issued notices to NEPRA and the other respondents and adjourned further proceedings in the case.
