Ministry of Energy (Power Division) on Tuesday sought time again from the Supreme Court to submit proposal to prioritise electricity load-shedding among different categories of consumers. The apex court on May 21 gave four weeks to file the proposal. However, additional attorney general appearing before a three-judge bench said that the proposal is not ready and some more time is required.
The bench, headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, heard the review petition of All Pakistan Textile Mills Association (APTMA) against the apex court judgement dated 10-12-2013. Justice Azmat directed the Ministry of Energy (Power Division) to submit the proposal on the next date of hearing. This is the third time that the Power Ministry has sought more time to prioritise load-shedding between different categories of consumers and issued notice to all parties. The Supreme Court on 27-02-19 had ordered the ministry to inform about proposal within six weeks.
Salman Akram Raja, appearing on behalf of APTMA, contended that twice the bench had issued specific direction to the Nepra and the federal government to present the proposal but still the government has not complied with its order. Additional Attorney General Sajjid Illyas Bhatti, representing Ministry of Energy (Power Division), said that the proposal to prioritise the supply of electricity to textile mills is under consideration. He sought more time to get instructions from the Ministry of Power.
The APTMA in its petition contended that the Supreme Court judgement erred in holding that electricity load-shedding in the country must be held 'without any distinction between rural and the urban areas as well as domestic commercial and industrial sectors.' It submitted that it is settled law of this court (SC) that treating the un-equals equally constitutes violation of Article 25 of Constitution and amounts to unlawful discrimination. The rural, urban, domestic, commercial and industrial consumers of electricity constitute distinct classes with differing imperatives for each class. Therefore, by mandating that no distinction among the various classes of consumers can be made, the impugned judgement violates the principle set by this court.
The petitioners argued that the impugned judgement has erred in law in failing to consider the provision of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (Nepra Act). Under the provision of the Nepra Act, specifically Sections 31 and 34 the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) as an independent regulator is required to consider the economic and social policy objectives of the federal government and prescribes standards for the 'principles and priorities of load-shedding.'
It is clear from these provisions as well as other provisions of the Nepra Act that in determining the distribution of electricity, the setting up tariffs and standards for electricity load-shedding, there can be various policy and social objectives to be met, and in light of those objectives priorities of load-shedding between among categories of consumers are to be determined. "Thus, it is clearly envisaged that various categories of consumers may be assigned different priorities for purpose of electricity load-shedding.
The impugned judgement has erred in law in holding that the Supreme Court could exercise jurisdiction in the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. It is not sufficient for jurisdictional purposes for a matter to 'involve' the fundamental rights of the citizens.
The impugned judgement fails to establish that the subject matter involved a question of public importance with reference to the fundamental rights as required under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. In failing to establish jurisdiction, the impugned judgement suffers from an error of law and is therefore, liable to be reviewed, submitted the petitioner.