AGL 34.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-2.05%)
AIRLINK 132.50 Increased By ▲ 9.27 (7.52%)
BOP 5.16 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.38%)
CNERGY 3.83 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-2.05%)
DCL 8.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.61%)
DFML 45.30 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (2.44%)
DGKC 75.90 Increased By ▲ 1.55 (2.08%)
FCCL 24.85 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (1.55%)
FFBL 44.18 Decreased By ▼ -4.02 (-8.34%)
FFL 8.80 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.23%)
HUBC 144.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.85 (-1.27%)
HUMNL 10.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-3.04%)
KEL 4.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KOSM 7.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-3.25%)
MLCF 33.25 Increased By ▲ 0.45 (1.37%)
NBP 56.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.65 (-1.14%)
OGDC 141.00 Decreased By ▼ -4.35 (-2.99%)
PAEL 25.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.19%)
PIBTL 5.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.35%)
PPL 112.74 Decreased By ▼ -4.06 (-3.48%)
PRL 24.08 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.33%)
PTC 11.19 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.27%)
SEARL 58.50 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.15%)
TELE 7.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.93%)
TOMCL 41.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.24%)
TPLP 8.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.96%)
TREET 15.14 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.39%)
TRG 56.10 Increased By ▲ 0.90 (1.63%)
UNITY 27.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.54%)
WTL 1.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-2.24%)
BR100 8,605 Increased By 33.2 (0.39%)
BR30 26,904 Decreased By -371.6 (-1.36%)
KSE100 82,074 Increased By 615.2 (0.76%)
KSE30 26,034 Increased By 234.5 (0.91%)

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.