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%)

The Lahore High Court on Thursday adjourned to December 22 the hearing in some identical petitions, challenging the tariff increase by National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) and extended the stay against the tariff in question till next date of hearing.
Earlier the court asked the counsel of Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (Fesco) and Nepra to respond to the submission of the petitioners'' counsel, but they sought more time to consider these important propositions.
Earlier, Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, arguing on behalf of All Pakistan Textile Mills Associations (APTMA), Ashiana Cotton Products and others, submitted that this was a unique case because the Fesco never filed a petition for increase in the tariff and yet the Nepra on its own, increased the tariff rates only on the ground that this would be consistent with other distribution companies (Discos).
The counsel argued that the order of Nepra was illegal because even if the Nepra could revise the tariff at its own, it still had to follow the principal of natural justice and hearing and had to deal with the objections of all stakeholders and consumers of the Fesco, which was not done in this case.
In fact, no notice was served on the consumers at all, he pointed out. He also argued that the tariff could not be increased on the ground of "for the sake of consistency with other Discos," but that each case had to be considered on merits, and the increase was only possible after considering all the standards and requirements specified under the Nepra Act on case-to-case basis.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2008

Comments

Comments are closed.