P. 1
Pakistan SC's judgment against the PM

Pakistan SC's judgment against the PM

|Views: 143|Likes:
Published by Bar & Bench
The judgment related to allegations of corruption against Pakistan PM when he was a Minister
The judgment related to allegations of corruption against Pakistan PM when he was a Minister

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Bar & Bench on Jan 18, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/18/2013

pdf

text

original

due role in the process of RPPs, firstly for the reason, that bids were

invited on the basis of reference tariff of the fuel; secondly, the NEPRA

was directed to follow the guidelines already issued in respect of IPPs

(guidelines 1.9 and 1.10), which have already been reproduced

hereinabove, but in our opinion NEPRA being an independent

regulatory body had to perform its functions according to law. As per

prescribed procedure, NEPRA could not be oblivious of its duty of

determining tariff in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the

Act, 1997. It may be noted that as per section 7(3)(a) of the Act,

1997, NEPRA is exclusively responsible for determining tariff, rates,

charges and other terms and conditions for supply of electric power

services by the generation, transmission and distribution companies

and recommend to the Federal Government for notification. One of the

most important aspects of the case is that under section 7(6) of the

Act, 1997, the NEPRA is mandated to protect the interests of

consumers and companies providing electric power services in

accordance with the guidelines, not inconsistent with the provisions of

the Act, laid down by the Federal Government. Therefore, the NEPRA

cannot close its eyes and determine tariff contrary to the provisions of

the Act, 1997. Not only that, under section 31 of the Act, 1997 and

HRC 7734-G/09
[RPPs case]

45

Rule 17(2) of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Tariff

Standards and Procedure) Rules, 1998, the NEPRA is required to lay

down procedures and standards for the purpose of determination of

tariff. One of the objects thereof is that the Authority should allow

preference for competition rather than regulation and adopt policy for

tariff determination in terms of rule 17(2) & (6) of the NEPRA Rules.

The NEPRA has not adopted the aforesaid procedures and standards in

the matter of RPPs. In the circumstances, it can only be inferred that

the NEPRA has been inoperative and inactive as far as RPPS are

concerned. When we inquired from the learned counsel as to why the

NEPRA has not asserted its decision in discharge of function assigned

to it, he had no satisfactory answer other than stating that in some of

the cases including the unsolicited projects, the NEPRA has followed

the said procedures and standards in determining tariff. We are not

satisfied with the arguments so advanced by him because the data

noted hereinabove indicates that in the case of Naudero-I, which was

an unsolicited project, apparently rates of electricity were determined

on the higher side. However, it might not be possible for the NEPRA to

discharge its functions because of the instructions and interference by

the Ministry of Water & Power, which had been issuing instructions

from time to time, but in any case, instead of following mandatory

provisions of the Act, 1997, the NEPRA ought not to have

compromised its position.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->