AGL 40.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
AIRLINK 127.04 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BOP 6.67 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
CNERGY 4.51 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DCL 8.55 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DFML 41.44 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DGKC 86.85 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FCCL 32.28 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFBL 64.80 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFL 10.25 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUBC 109.57 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUMNL 14.68 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 5.05 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KOSM 7.46 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 41.38 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
NBP 60.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
OGDC 190.10 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PAEL 27.83 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PIBTL 7.83 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PPL 150.06 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PRL 26.88 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PTC 16.07 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
SEARL 86.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TELE 7.71 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TOMCL 35.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TPLP 8.12 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TREET 16.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TRG 53.29 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
UNITY 26.16 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
WTL 1.26 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BR100 10,010 Increased By 126.5 (1.28%)
BR30 31,023 Increased By 422.5 (1.38%)
KSE100 94,192 Increased By 836.5 (0.9%)
KSE30 29,201 Increased By 270.2 (0.93%)

A division bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) has issued pre-admission notice for April 27 in a writ petition, challenging advancing of the clock by an hour (Daylight Time Saving- DTS) as well as unequal burden of load-shedding on the citizens.
Petitioner Imtiaz Rashid Qureshi, through his counsel Barrister Farooq Hassan, contended that alteration made in the time from April 15 last was without any statutory or constitutional authority, unreasonable, arbitrary, lacking in cohesion and against the fundamental rights of the people.
He said such exercise of power was void per se, as the Federation was utterly confused as to differentiate between advancing of the clocks and backing them up. The petitioner said the government claimed that advancing the clock by one hour aimed at doing equal good to the people was discriminatory and arbitrary in constitutional terms as well as undemocratic.
As to load shedding, the petitioner said, the authorities claimed that the difference of 2200mw in supply and demand of electricity existed per day load shedding across the board should not exceed three hours, which, however, was from 16 to 18 hours a day. He prayed to the court to strike down the notification relating to advancing the clock by one hour and also direct the authorities to put equal burden of load shedding on the citizens.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2009

Comments

Comments are closed.