Find a Lawyer

ROOMI FOODS (PVT) LTD versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

s 31, 7 and 2 (2) (i) ational National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Tariff Standards and Procedures) Rules, 1998, RR 18 (2) and 3 - To be effective upon the issuance of tariff, determination tariff assessment notification Commitment Applicants directed the Federal Government to immediately notify Nepra of tariffs fixed in connection with Multan Electric Power Company (E Mapco \\\). Notified of new tariff, old tariff schedule will remain effective Question Notification of new tariff schedule for the financial year is pending, In the present case, under Mepco law, consumers will be required to collect electricity tariff based on the old tariff. Was bound. Last financial year before the High Court, the High Court dealt with the petitioner's permission to file a new constitutional petition after a holiday order banning the notification of pending rates. Another High Court and, until then, Mapco old. Was at liberty to receive the taxes, however, the same amount could not be obtained from the applicants but was exported in installments, [p 786] A&B

P L D 2017 Lahore 784

Before Shams Mehmood Mirza, J

ROOMI FOODS (PVT) LTD and others—Petitioners

versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others—Respondents

Writ Petition No. 10594 of 2016, decided on 8th February, 2017.

Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act (XL of 1997)-—

—Ss, 31 & 7(2)(i)—National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Tariff Standards and Procedure) Rules, 1998, Rr.18(2) & 3—-Tariff, determination of—Tariff to become effective on issuance of notification—Petitioners sought direction to the Federal Government to immediately notify the tariff determined by NEPRA in respect of the Multan Electric Power Company (".MEPCO ")—Validity-Schedule of a tariff only became effective once it was notified and till such time a new tariff was notified, old schedule of tariff would remain effective— Pending notification of schedule of the new tariff for the financial year in question, in present case, MEPCO was obliged under law to charge electricity bills from consumers on basis of the old tariff for the previous financial year—High Court disposed of the constitutional petition with permission to file a fresh constitutional petition to the petitioners after vacation of restraining order against notification of tariff pending before another High Court and till such time, MEPCO was at liberty to charge old tariff, however, the same was not to be charged in tump sum from the petitioners but recovered in.installments, [p. 786]A&B

Hameed Steel and others v. LESCO and others (W.P. No.25437 of 2015) ref.

Malik Kashif Rafiq Rajwana, Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana and Malik Sohail Ashiq Shujra for Petitioners.

Malik Mureed Hussain for NEPRA.

Ghulam Mujtaba for Respondent No.l.

Jaffar Sabtain, Hassan Qunain, Rao Muhammad Iqbal, Abdul Razak Raja, Ch. Muhammad Saleem Waraich, Sajjad Khan, Khush Bakht Khan, Malik Nazar Hussain Arain, Aamir Aziz Qazi, Malik Anwar ul Haq for MEPCO along with Ahmad Hassan Sumroo Section L.O

how to become a advocate from Dhirkot lawyer