Summary: Background: This case involves several appellants, primarily industrial consumers of electricity, who challenged the Fuel Price Adjustment (FPA) and Quarterly Tariff Adjustment (QTA) determinations made by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) between 2021 and 2023. The appellants argued that after the 2021 amendment to the NEPRA Act, NEPRA was not properly constituted, and thus its determinations were invalid. They also contended that procedural delays in issuing FPA and QTA adjustments further rendered the determinations void. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals but retained the notifications of the impugned determinations. -----Issues: 1- Whether NEPRA was legally constituted following the 2021 amendment to the NEPRA Act, and if a fresh notification was required for its reconstitution. ----2- Whether NEPRA’s FPA and QTA determinations were valid, given the delays in adhering to statutory timeframes. ----3- Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the determinations but allowing the related notifications to remain in force. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the 2021 amendment to the NEPRA Act, which changed NEPRA’s status to a statutory corporation, did not invalidate NEPRA's previous constitution. It clarified that a fresh notification for NEPRA's reconstitution was not required. NEPRA’s actions were protected under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which preserved the continuity of its authority. Regarding the FPA and QTA determinations, the court found that while NEPRA exceeded the statutory timeframes for issuing the determinations, the absence of penal consequences indicated that these timeframes were directory, not mandatory. As a result, the determinations were upheld as valid. The court also upheld the Tribunal’s decision to set aside the determinations but retain the related notifications. This decision ensured continuity and allowed necessary tariff adjustments until new determinations could be made. -----Citations/Precedents: Saeed Ahmed Vs. The State (PLD 1964 SC 266) Institute of Architects, Pakistan (Lahore Chapter) Vs. Province of Punjab (2016 PTD 1103 Lahore) Commissioner Inland Revenue Rawalpindi Vs. Sarwaq Traders Rawalpindi (2022 SCMR 1333) Qazi Tahir Vs. Secretary, Pakistan Medical Commission (2022 PLC (CS) 805) Flying Board and Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division (2010 SCMR 517) Ghani Global Glass Limited Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Energy (Power Division), Islamabad (PLD 2020 Lahore 167) ICC Textile Limited through Authorized Representative Vs. Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), Lahore through Chairman (2009 CLC 1343)

Summary: (a) Electricity Act, 1910----S. 24NEPRA Act, 1997----S. 45 & Consumer Service ManualElectricity disconnection---Recovery of arrears from subsequent allottee---Scope---Petitioner, an employee allotted official accommodation, challenged the disconnection of electricity by SEPCO and demand for arrears (Rs. 800,000/-) attributed to the previous allottee—It was an admitted position that the petitioner was regularly paying electricity bills since the date of her occupation, and a separate new meter had been installed—Held, SEPCO could not demand previous dues from the petitioner without lawful basis, nor disconnect electricity for arrears attributable to a prior occupant—Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 45 of the NEPRA Act, 1997, read with the Consumer Service Manual, mandate that disconnection is only permissible upon non-payment of dues by the consumer named on the current meter—In absence of any restraining order and as petitioner continued to pay her dues, disconnection was declared illegal—SEPCO may initiate recovery against the previous allottee or refer the matter to a competent forum such as the Electric Inspector.(b) Service Law & Official Accommodation----Allotment letter---Liability of utilities---Scope---Petitioner's allotment letter explicitly required payment of utility bills from the date of occupation—Responsibility to clear dues of previous occupants was not placed on petitioner—Any arrears owed by prior allottees must be recovered separately under relevant recovery procedures, and petitioner cannot be held liable for the same in law—Respondent-SEPCO’s action of disconnecting supply on that ground was found to be contrary to the terms of allotment and public service fairness.(c) Administrative Law----Public utility obligations---Fair procedure---SEPCO, as a public utility provider, must follow principles of due process before taking coercive steps such as disconnection—Disputes regarding arrears or liability for past consumption must be resolved via Electric Inspector or proper legal forum—Electricity supply cannot be denied to a consumer who is regularly paying their own consumption charges—Public utility bodies are required to act fairly, transparently, and in accordance with law.----Disposition: Petition Allowed in Terms—Electricity Connection to be Restored—Arrears Attributable to Previous Allottee Not Recoverable from Petitioner.

Summary: (Only NEPRA can determine the tariff and adjust electricity based subsidies in the tariff) This judgment pertains to the rationalization of electricity tariffs in Pakistan. The Federal Government sought to establish a uniform tariff throughout the country, applying the same price to electricity for all consumers. Initially, the government determined the tariff for each distribution company (DISCO) and applied to the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) to devise a uniform tariff. However, the government deviated from the established process by independently determining the Schedule of Tariffs (SOT) for K-Electric, instead of NEPRA. To rectify this deviation, the Federal Government issued a corrigendum to adjust the tariff. However, this decision faced legal challenges from consumers who had been enjoying a subsidized rate during off-peak hours. The consumers questioned the withdrawal of the subsidy and contested the corrigendum while simultaneously accepting the uniform tariff determined by the government. In its judgment, the court held that the petitions filed by the consumers were without merit. It emphasized that the determination and adjustment of tariffs should be within the authority of NEPRA, not the Federal Government. The court acknowledged that subsidies are based on government policies and are subject to modification or withdrawal. Therefore, it upheld the corrigendum issued by the government and recommended that future adjustments adhere to the proper process, ensuring NEPRA's involvement in tariff determinations.

Summary: The Supreme Court was tasked with determining several questions, including whether NEPRA has the authority to impose the charges on the appellant company's consumers, whether the determination of charges was arbitrary, the constitutional command regarding electricity matters, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction in the case. The judgment examines the legal provisions applicable to the case, emphasizing that NEPRA has the exclusive power to regulate the provision of electric power services and determine tariffs. The Court disagrees with the High Court's conclusion that the charges were not covered by the definition of "tariff" and explains that NEPRA has broad powers to issue guidelines and procedures for incorporating various tariffs, including the charges, into the tariff structure. (Appeal allowed, order by high court set aside)

Summary: The Supreme Court was tasked with determining several questions, including whether NEPRA has the authority to impose the charges on the appellant company's consumers, whether the determination of charges was arbitrary, the constitutional command regarding electricity matters, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction in the case. The judgment examines the legal provisions applicable to the case, emphasizing that NEPRA has the exclusive power to regulate the provision of electric power services and determine tariffs. The Court disagrees with the High Court's conclusion that the charges were not covered by the definition of "tariff" and explains that NEPRA has broad powers to issue guidelines and procedures for incorporating various tariffs, including the charges, into the tariff structure. (Appeal allowed, order by high court set aside)

Summary: The Supreme Court was tasked with determining several questions, including whether NEPRA has the authority to impose the charges on the appellant company's consumers, whether the determination of charges was arbitrary, the constitutional command regarding electricity matters, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction in the case. The judgment examines the legal provisions applicable to the case, emphasizing that NEPRA has the exclusive power to regulate the provision of electric power services and determine tariffs. The Court disagrees with the High Court's conclusion that the charges were not covered by the definition of "tariff" and explains that NEPRA has broad powers to issue guidelines and procedures for incorporating various tariffs, including the charges, into the tariff structure. (Appeal allowed, order by high court set aside)

Summary: The Supreme Court was tasked with determining several questions, including whether NEPRA has the authority to impose the charges on the appellant company's consumers, whether the determination of charges was arbitrary, the constitutional command regarding electricity matters, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction in the case. The judgment examines the legal provisions applicable to the case, emphasizing that NEPRA has the exclusive power to regulate the provision of electric power services and determine tariffs. The Court disagrees with the High Court's conclusion that the charges were not covered by the definition of "tariff" and explains that NEPRA has broad powers to issue guidelines and procedures for incorporating various tariffs, including the charges, into the tariff structure. (Appeal allowed, order by high court set aside)

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001)------Ss. 113, 120(1)(b) & 122(5)(A)--Filing of income tax return--Claim for exemption being tariffdifferential subsidy--Amended assessment order--Total sale was determined--Issuance of showcause notice--Appeal--Dismissed--Second appeal--Rejected--Subsidy--TDS is amount receivablefrom Government of Pakistan on account of difference between lower than NEPRA Tariff pricecharged from consumers and price notified by NEPRA--Thus is not a subsidy or grant given toQESCO as a bailout package--Electric supply companies were exempt from minimum tax underSection 113 from date of their creation upto date of completion of process of corporatization i.e.till tariff is notified--Such period has already lapsed under Part IV of Second Schedule toOrdinance, no exemption from minimum tax is available to electric supply companies at present--Amount receivable by electric power supply companies from Government of Pakistan onaccount of difference between lower than NEPRA Tariff rate charged to consumers and ratenotified by NEPRA is not subsidy--It is balance price of electricity which is paid by Governmenton behalf of electricity consumers to provide relief to such consumers--Such total amountconstitute gross revenue on account of sale of electricity and such revenue is liable to minimumtax under Section Ordinance unless a specific exemption is brought into part IV of secondSchedule to Ordinance--Tribunal has erroneously referred to Clause (102A) Part I of SecondSchedule to Ordinance while discussing exemption from minimum tax because Part I of SecondSchedule provides exemption from total income only and it has no concern with exemption fromspecific provision which is covered in Part IV of Second Schedule to Ordinance. [

Summary: The case revolves around the revocation of Return on Equity (ROE) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) determined by NEPRA for Attock Gen Limited's tariff application---- Attock Gen Limited, the petitioner, applied for Tariff Determination to the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission, and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (NEPRA Act). The proceedings were conducted as per legal provisions, and NEPRA provided an Original Tariff Determination on 04.09.2006, including observations regarding Return on Equity (ROE) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The petitioner sought financial closure based on this determination. However, the petitioner also requested certain amendments, and NEPRA issued a corrigendum on 14.10.2006, specifying that Tariff Adjustment should be made based on actual drawdowns during the construction period at the time of the Commercial Operation Date (COD). The petitioner applied for six corrections in the Tariff Adjustment, and three were allowed, but for the rest, NEPRA advised the petitioner to file a review petition.The petitioner filed a motion for leave for review on 25.11.2009, and a decision was made on 24.05.2010, revising the parameters for Internal Rate of Return. Dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioner filed the present petition.The petitioner argued that once the Original Tariff Determination was made, NEPRA could not revoke it, citing principles like estoppel and locus poenitentiae. They referred to various legal cases in support of their arguments.On the other hand, NEPRA contended that the observations regarding ROE and IRR in the Original Tariff Determination were tentative, not final, and hence, no vested rights accrued to the petitioner. They also argued that the determination of ROE and IRR conflicted with the principles of the Government of Pakistan and Tariff Determination.Other respondents adopted NEPRA's arguments, and they also stated that contractual obligations should not be interfered with in a writ petition.The petitioner sought to distinguish the case law cited by the respondents.The Court heard the arguments from both sides and examined the documents. The core issue was the revocation of ROE and IRR in the Original Tariff Determination. The petitioner claimed that this revocation was barred by estoppel and locus poenitentiae, citing various legal precedents. However, the respondents argued that the order was not illegal, and thus, these principles did not apply.The Court ultimately ruled that the principles of locus poenitentiae and estoppel were not relevant in this case, as the order was not illegal. It also noted that NEPRA had the authority to review its orders, and the petitioner had been given an opportunity to present their case.As a result, the Court found the petitioner's arguments to be without merit and dismissed the petition.

Summary: Background:The case pertains to excessive and unannounced load shedding in Sindh, particularly in Karachi, brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.Various stakeholders are present, including representatives from the Power Division, Ministry of Energy, NEPRA, K-Electric, HESCO, SEPCO, and legal counsels.---Issues:Lack of coordination between the Power Division, NEPRA, and NTDC regarding actions against K-Electric.The worsening electricity situation in Karachi, with nearly half the city facing power outages.Responsibility of K-Electric to maintain and clear its infrastructure affected by rains without waiting for government assistance.Need for consultation by the Attorney General with officials of the Ministry of Energy.Interpretation and application of Section 26 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (the Act of 1997).Establishment and functionality of the Appellate Tribunal as per Section 12A of the Act of 1997.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court finds the reply filed by the Power Division, Ministry of Energy, unacceptable due to lack of compliance with the Court's order and inadequate coordination with NEPRA and NTDC.It is emphasized that there should be proper coordination between relevant departments, agencies, and companies regarding actions against K-Electric, and a coordinated decision-making process should be adopted.K-Electric is reminded of its responsibility as a private company to promptly clear its infrastructure affected by rain and restore electricity supply without relying on government assistance.The Attorney General is granted time for consultation with officials of the Ministry of Energy.Section 26 of the Act of 1997 is cited, empowering the Authority to amend or vary license conditions in the public interest, which should be utilized to address the issue of exclusivity of K-Electric.The Court directs the Authority to implement Section 26 within one month and file a report accordingly, without being hindered by any court orders.The Federal Government is instructed to appoint members to the Appellate Tribunal within 10 days and ensure its functionality.---Citations/Precedents:Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997Section 26 of the Act of 1997Section 12A of the Act of 1997