The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has categorically observed that the regulatory bodies have only raised technical objections on the crucial issue of non-payment of 3 percent fee/charges by the regulators, which carries no legal weight.
Sources told Business Recorder here on Tuesday that the regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) have merely raised technical objections to delay the process of 3 percent fee/charges payment collected on annual basis.
The objections raised by the regulatory bodies have no legal ground to justify non-payment of the fee. It is a violation of the Competition Act, 2010 that regulators are not making 3 percent fee payment as prescribed under the said law. The regulators are delaying the payment for the last many years by raising observations which have no legal grounds.
According to sources, the CCP is still waiting for the response of the Law and Justice Division on the objections raised by the said regulatory bodies for non-payment of 3 percent fee. In most of the cases, the objections have no legal basis to contest 3 percent fee as prescribed under the law. For example, few regulators have objected that it is in violation of the fundamental right of the regulator to charge such kind of fee. Legally, regulatory bodies have no fundamental right on the pattern of individuals or corporate entities. Such justification for non-payment of fee is merely a delaying tactic adopted by the regulators.
The regulators needs to recognise that the Parliament has imposed 3 percent fee and wisdom of legislators should not be questioned. The regulators bodies need to appreciate that the law duly approved by the Parliament must be implemented by the all concerns, sources added.
The CCP had informed the Law and Justice Division that the federal government, under section 20 of the Competition Act, 2010 fixed a percentage of fees and charges levied by five regulatory agencies (the agencies) ie SECP, Ogra, PTA, Pemra and Nepra, for contribution to the Commission Fund. The agencies resisted compliance with the statutory provisions and raised certain objections/ queries which were received in the Finance Division for clarification. The queries made by them were referred to the Law & Justice Division for opinion.
The observations/ queries made by the aforesaid agencies have been examined thoroughly in light of the facts and law. The comments of the commission have also been forwarded to the Law Division for finalisation of the comments. It will be much appreciated if the opinion of the Law & Justice Division is communicated to the Finance Division at the earliest, enabling it to implement the decision of the Government, as the Commission is facing acute financial constraint due to non-recovery of 3% fees and charges of the aforesaid agencies since 2008-2009, CCP added.
On the issue, Ministry of Finance fully supports the CCP for collection of fee/charges from the regulators. Despite total support of the Finance Ministry, the regulators are still reluctant to pay the due amount. The objections raised by the regulators are still pending before the Law and Justice Division for last four months and so far the Division has not finalised its comments.
Sources said that the financial autonomy of the CCP is necessary for smooth functioning of the Commission, but the regulators have not yet paid any amount on account of fee/charges collected and the matter is pending before the Law and Justice Division. The laws administered by the relevant regulatory bodies will not require amendment prior to any payment to CCP of such percentage of fee and charges collected by the regulatory body concerned. The Competition Act 2010, under section 59 thereof, has been given an overriding effect and is binding for all.
Sources said that the claim by any regulatory authority that they are regulating the competition and protecting the interests of consumers parallel to the Competition Act is misconceived and such overlapping does not create any conflict as both are operating in their distinct domain and there are distinct violations under each law.