Pak Tea House » lawyers movement, Pakistan » Pro-People Supreme Court tells NEPRA to behave
Pro-People Supreme Court tells NEPRA to behave
While the Nay-sayers continue to abuse the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Lawyers’ Movement, the SCP has struck another one for the people. -YLH
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court vacated on Thursday its order restraining the authorities from raising electricity tariff but cautioned the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) against coming up with any coercive plan to increase the tariff.
The court asked Nepra to inform it in advance, before recommending a tariff increase.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and comprising Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed and Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja is hearing a suo motu case against the proposed increase in tariff despite erratic power supply and decline in oil prices in the international market.
The bench issued notices to the ministries of finance and water and power and asked them to inform the court about the proposed withdrawal of subsidy on electricity or increase in the tariff.
‘We do not want to interfere in your working, but the tariff formula should be in accordance with the rules,’ the chief justice observed before adjourning the hearing for three weeks.
The apex court had on July 6 stayed a proposed increase in electricity tariff till a final decision on the case. Taking notice of the government’s move to increase the tariff by a whopping 17 per cent across the board, with an exception to lifeline consumers, the chief justice had sought an explanation from the Water and Power Development Authority, Nepra and power distribution companies about the proposed increase despite massive loadshedding.
News reports suggest that the tariff may be increased by Rs1.96 per unit, but Wapda says the government has yet to approve it.
Advocate Anwer Kamal, the counsel for Pepco and distribution companies, said that power tariff had not been increased after the court order.
The court also asked the counsel about a statement issued by the government that subsidy on electricity would not be withdrawn over the next six months.
Advocate Ijazul Hassan, the counsel for Nepra, informed the court that the role of the authority was to make recommendations on the basis of petitions filed by power generation and distribution companies, keeping in view their revenue requirements. ‘Nepra has nothing to do with the subsidy. It is the prerogative of the government.’
He said that according to his information the government had decided not to withdraw subsidy on electricity for the time being.
Courtesy Dawn.com
Filed under: lawyers movement, Pakistan · Tags: lawyers movement, NEPRA, Pro-People, Supreme COurt








said
said
said




Why do the courts have to legislate on power tariffs? Tariff has to be one based on the cost of power generation, including interest (or its Islamic equivalent) depreciation and some reasonable profit. What expertise does the judiciary have to fix tariffs? Unless some law is being broken, and if that is the case my remarks don’t apply.
Actually the SCP is only asking the Authority to faithfully follow the formula that you refer to.
I don’t see how this amounts to legislation unless you didn’t even read the story.
I read your story, I dont know what Nepra has done or not done that it should. My comment was on judicial interference beyond its scope. I know Pakistan has much to be grateful to its judiciary in the last two or three years, but given the experience with the Indian judiciary I can venture to say that judicial intervention is no substitute for executive pusillanimity. In some cases a minatory judiciary forces through judgements that have no force of law only on the basis of popular sentiment or even minority sentiment copied from popular intellectual trends abroad.
The courts should be a last resort from a dysfunctional executive not a weapon of choice. Executive failures result in army takeovers sometimes. The judiciary is an equally bad alternative. If Nepra is not following its own rules what is the Minister concerned doing?