Summary: The plaintiffs sought a declaration and permanent injunction regarding a show cause notice and termination notice related to a hydro power project on Swat River. They contended that the project had been awarded on a "build, own, operate, and transfer" (BOOT) basis, which created vested rights in their favor. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had consistently defaulted and delayed their obligations, including filing the required Tariff Petition with NEPRA (National Electric Power Regulatory Authority). The defendants maintained that the termination of the plaintiffs' rights was in the public interest due to the plaintiffs' lack of progress and non-compliance with project requirements. The court heard arguments from both sides and examined various correspondences and actions taken throughout the project's timeline. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs had not fulfilled their obligations and responsibilities adequately, and as a result, their claim for an injunction was denied. The judge emphasized the larger public interest in timely project completion and the need to ensure accountability. Overall, the court's decision was to dismiss the plaintiffs' application for an injunction, citing their failure to demonstrate a strong case and the larger public interest in project completion.

Summary: The court examines the relevant sections of the Electricity Act, 1910, and the NEPRA Act, as well as an order related to the establishment of inspection offices. It concludes that disputes related to metering, billing, and collection of tariff fall under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Office of Inspection as per the NEPRA Act. Consequently, appeals against the Electric Inspector's decisions should be filed before NEPRA, not the Advisory Board.Limitation Act: The order also addresses the petitioner's claim of filing an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. It explains that this claim does not hold, and the appeal was rightly rejected by NEPRA.Court's Ruling: The court declares that, after the promulgation of the 2005 order, decisions by the Electric Inspector are to be treated as decisions by the Provincial Office of Inspection. Appeals against these decisions, following the enactment of section 38(3) of the NEPRA Act, should be made to the Authority as defined in the NEPRA Act.Dismissal: The writ petitions are dismissed.This order sheet clarifies the appropriate legal process for appeals against the decisions of the Electric Inspector in electricity-related matters and specifies that such appeals should be filed with NEPRA following the enactment of section 38(3) of the NEPRA Act.

Summary: Issue: Whether NEPRA's decision on the "Motion for Leave to Review" was valid when made by three members instead of the full statutory strength of five members.Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Lahore High Court, and held that the decision made by the three members of NEPRA was within the competence of the Authority.Reasoning: The Court found that the NEPRA Act of 1997 and the NEPRA Rules, 1998 should be read harmoniously. Section 5(2) of the NEPRA Act provides that a quorum of three members is sufficient for the Authority's decisions, which includes decisions on motions for review. The term "full strength" in Rule 16(6) was interpreted to mean the quorum as defined by the Act, not necessarily all five members. The Court emphasized that rules are subservient to the statute, and interpretations of rules should not extend beyond the confines of the statute. Thus, a decision by any number of members meeting the quorum requirement is considered a decision by the "full strength" of the Authority as per Rule 16(6).Key Precedents Cited:Ziauddin v. Punjab Local Government (1985 SCMR 365)Pakistan v. Aryan Petro Chemical Industries (Pvt) Ltd (2003 SCMR 370)Isa Ammal v. Rama Kudumban (AIR 1953 Madras 129)Judgment: The Supreme Court set aside the Lahore High Court's judgment and upheld the decision made by the three members of NEPRA, affirming that it was within the Authority's competence to do so based on the NEPRA Act's provisions.

Summary: The central issue revolved around consumers of gas and electricity who approached the Ombudsman with complaints about overbilling and disputed bills. The Advisors to the Ombudsman issued orders restraining companies from collecting disputed amounts and disconnecting meters. The Single Judge's ruling stated that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction did not cover matters already governed by special laws, such as billing disputes. These issues fell under the authority of other regulatory bodies like OGRA (Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority) and NEPRA (National Electric Power Regulatory Authority). The judgment drew a clear distinction between the Ombudsman's jurisdiction in cases of "maladministration" and the jurisdiction of specialized regulatory bodies in handling billing disputes and related matters. The Ombudsman and some complainants argued that the judgment limited the Ombudsman's powers and their ability to provide quick relief to the public. The court clarified that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction applied exclusively to cases of "maladministration" as defined in the relevant order. The Ombudsman's role was to investigate and recommend actions related to maladministration, but it did not have the authority to interfere with billing disputes and other issues falling under the purview of specialized regulatory bodies. As a result, the judgment was upheld, and the appeals were resolved accordingly.

Summary: The petitioner, Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited (FESCO), challenged the determination made by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) regarding the Annual Tariff Petition for the financial year 2013-14.The court acknowledged that both the original determination and the review determination had been challenged. However, the court stated that the review determination had merged with the original determination, and hence, it was the review determination that would be considered as impugned before the court.The petitioner argued that Rule 16(6) of the NEPRA (Tariff Standards and Procedure) Rules, 1998, required the Motion for Leave to Review to be determined by the "full strength of the Authority." However, the order in question had been passed by only three members of the Authority, while the "full strength" of the Authority comprised five members, including the Chairman. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument, stating that the term "full strength" in the Rule referred to all the members of the Authority sitting together and deciding the review. It emphasized that the requirement of hearing the review by the full strength of the Authority was significant as it ensured due process and lent a complete decision-making body to the review proceedings. Ultimately, the court accepted the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, FESCO.

Summary: (a) Principles of Natural Justice: ----Art. 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973---Fundamental right to due process---Applications rejected by NEPRA without affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing or recording reasons constitute a violation of due process and principles of natural justice---The doctrine of audi alteram partem mandates that decisions affecting rights or interests must include transparency and procedural fairness---Held, NEPRA’s rejection of applications without providing an opportunity of hearing was ultra vires the Act of 1997, contrary to the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority Upfront Tariff (Approval and Procedure) Regulations, 2011, and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 10-A. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Yasin v. FOP through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2012 SC 132) Flying Board and Paper Products Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others (2010 SCMR 517) The University of Dacca through its Vice Chancellor and another v. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90) Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 483) Lahore Development Authority through D.G. and others v. Ms. Imran Tiwana and others (2015 SCMR 1739) (b) Regulatory Capture and Procedural Fairness: ----Ss. 6 & 7 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission, and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997---NEPRA as an independent statutory regulatory authority must ensure transparency, procedural fairness, and autonomy in decision-making---The withdrawal of approvals by NTDC, influenced by NEPRA, without meaningful engagement with stakeholders, raised concerns of regulatory capture and undermined NEPRA’s statutory role as a neutral and independent regulator. ----Cited Cases: Maqbool Ahmed and others v. District Officer (R) and others (PLD 2010 Lahore 332) (c) NEPRA Upfront Tariff Regulations, 2011: ----Regln. 4(8)---Mandatory opportunity of hearing before rejecting applications---Sub-regulation (8) of Regulation 4 explicitly requires NEPRA to give applicants an opportunity of hearing before rejecting their applications for upfront tariff approval---Held, NEPRA’s rejection of applications without compliance with the mandatory requirement of hearing was invalid, requiring a fresh decision in compliance with statutory obligations. (d) Promissory Estoppel and Investor Rights: ----Government policies---Investors’ reliance on government representations and approvals---Petitioners claimed rights under the 2015 tariff policy based on significant investments made in response to representations by the Punjab Government and NEPRA---Held, such claims must be fairly considered by NEPRA during fresh proceedings, ensuring that all relevant grounds and studies, including the GOPA Study, are reviewed. ----Disposition: Petitions allowed---Impugned orders rejecting the applications were set aside---Applications remanded to NEPRA for fresh decision-making after affording a meaningful hearing and adhering to the principles of procedural fairness, statutory requirements, and due process.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, industrial entities, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging a National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) decision dated 11.07.2024. This decision imposed substantial fixed charges on their electricity bills for September 2024. The petitioners argued that these charges were excessive, arbitrary, and lacked legal justification, and requested the court to suspend the impugned bills and prevent disconnection of electricity connections. NEPRA countered by arguing that the petitioners had an alternate remedy through an appeal under Section 12(G) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission, and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, which should be pursued before invoking the court’s jurisdiction. ------Issues: 1- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 199 when an alternative statutory remedy is available? -----2- Were the petitioners justified in bypassing the NEPRA Appellate Tribunal by claiming it was non-functional, thereby invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction? ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, ruling that it was not maintainable and constituted an attempt to bypass an available and adequate statutory remedy: --Alternative Remedy: The court noted that the NEPRA Appellate Tribunal was fully functional and capable of hearing the petitioners' grievances. Jurisprudence under Article 199 discourages invoking constitutional jurisdiction when an alternative, adequate, and efficacious remedy is provided by law, as it diverts matters that specialized forums are designed to address. --Misrepresentation of Tribunal Status: The court found that the petitioners misrepresented the tribunal’s functionality to justify their direct approach to the High Court. Since the tribunal was operational, the petitioners were required to pursue their grievances through it, rather than the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. --Principle of Equity: Petitioners seeking discretionary relief under Article 199 must demonstrate good faith and honesty. The court highlighted that misleading or concealing facts, as done by the petitioners regarding the tribunal’s status, disqualifies them from equitable relief. The petition was dismissed in limine, and the court advised that the petitioners utilize the statutory appeal process provided under the Regulation of Electric Power Act. -----Citations/Precedents: Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others (2016 SCMR 842) Mian Azam Waheed and 2 others v. The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs, Karachi (2023 SCMR 1247)

Summary: [Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (Section 31 (7))] In light of the foregoing, we reach to an irresistible conclusion that the exercise of passing monthly FCA on to the petitioners on the basis of NEPRAs determination dated 27.12.2019 is in accordance with law and the timeline provided under Section 31(7) of the Act, 1997 be adhered to, unless any party is restricted for a reason beyond its control, which is a case at hand. The Petitioners clearly failed to avail statutory remedies under the law while the impugned determination was being made and even thereafter, nonetheless there is no cavil that the petitioners owe FCA component to K-Electric and liable to satisfy this debt. These instant Petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.

Summary: [Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (Section 31 (7))] In light of the foregoing, we reach to an irresistible conclusion that the exercise of passing monthly FCA on to the petitioners on the basis of NEPRAs determination dated 27.12.2019 is in accordance with law and the timeline provided under Section 31(7) of the Act, 1997 be adhered to, unless any party is restricted for a reason beyond its control, which is a case at hand. The Petitioners clearly failed to avail statutory remedies under the law while the impugned determination was being made and even thereafter, nonetheless there is no cavil that the petitioners owe FCA component to K-Electric and liable to satisfy this debt. These instant Petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.

Summary: [Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (Section 31 (7)) In light of the foregoing, we reach to an irresistible conclusion that the exercise of passing monthly FCA on to the petitioners on the basis of NEPRAs determination dated 27.12.2019 is in accordance with law and the timeline provided under Section 31(7) of the Act, 1997 be adhered to, unless any party is restricted for a reason beyond its control, which is a case at hand. The Petitioners clearly failed to avail statutory remedies under the law while the impugned determination was being made and even thereafter, nonetheless there is no cavil that the petitioners owe FCA component to K-Electric and liable to satisfy this debt. These instant Petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.