Find a Lawyer

OLYMPIA POWER GENERATION (PVT) LTD. versus SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD.

15 Sections 15, 16 and 20 - Intra Court of Appeals - Tariff Independent Power Project (1PP) - The plaintiffs had their own power generating industrial units for electricity used in homes. Power unit (CPU) did not apply to them - Accuracy ?? A detailed and cumbersome procedure for setting up 1PP was fixed and the plaintiff did not pass any strict requirement to obtain IPP status. I only intend to acquire industrial gas connections at their factory and hook up a gas pipeline to a gas generator whose purpose is to generate electricity under Section 15 of the Electric Power Act of 1997, and they Also, promising that electricity will only be for 'self-use *, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be classified because IPP - IPP and CPU (or industrial) Your unit) were separate breeds of industrial action and different laws and procedures - regulators could not be given any special benefit to IPPs in any form, including special rates or etiquette. The Division Bench of the High Court refused to interfere with the Single Judge's decision. High Court ??? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????? [[[[[[?? [[[[[[[[[, [Page 77, 79] A&B

P L D 2017 Sindh 73 

Before Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, J

OLYMPIA POWER GENERATION (PVT) LTD. through Chief Executive Officer and another—Appellants

versus

SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD.—Respondent

High Court Appeals Nos.214 to 221, 230 and 293 of 2015, decided on 18th August, 2016.

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

—Ss. 15, 16 & 20—Intra court appeal—Tariff—-Independent Power Project (1PP)— Plaintiffs were industrial units producing their own electricity for their in-house consumption—Plea raised by plaintiffs was that as they were IPPs therefore, tariff for Captive Power Unit (CPU) did not apply to them—Validity—Detailed and cumbersome procedure was laid down for setting up an 1PP and plaintiffs had not gone through any of the stringent requirements to attain the status of IPP— By merely getting an industrial gas connection in their factory and hooking gas pipeline to a gas-generator intended to produce electricity under S.15 of Regulations of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, and that too upon giving undertaking that the electricity would be for ‘self-use* only, therefore, plaintiffs could not be classified as IPP—IPPs and CPU (or industrial units) were different breed of industrial undertakings and separate laws and procedures regulate them—Plaintiffs could not be provided any benefit accorded to IPPs in any fÓrm; including special rates or manners (interruptability) at which gas or other supplies were provided to IPPs— Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court—Intra court appeal was dismissed in circumstances, [pp. 77, 79] A & B

Muneer A. Malik along with Anas Makhdoom and Ameen Bundukada for Appellants.

Asim Iqbal and Farmanullah for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18th May, 2016.

inheritance advocates near Sanjwal lawyer