Find a Lawyer

MESSRS BHANERO ENERGY LTD. versus SUI SOUTHERN GAS CO. LIMITED

ection Section 15 tive Captive Power (CP) and Independent Power Producers (IPP) - The claimant was licensed to generate electricity and he claimed that he was suing gas for the IPPs applied. It is entitled to prices which it is selling electricity in bulk. Sister's concern - or related to another independent entity - After the implementation of validation power independent agreements, the power generated by independent power producers was provided to the national grid or to the bulk power users via the national grid. The distinction between captive power and independent power producers is justified as any corporate one. For the sole purpose of its sole benefit, the entity can join any company to supply uninterrupted energy without the concerns of its sister and at the same time claim the privilege of being a freelance power producer, which is available to all other entities. That way it cannot provide a perfect opportunity to climb. Competitive markets - such preference / privileges and privileges were for independent power producers of which h provided the National Grid the power to overcome its shortcomings regardless of their interests - if IPPs had their choice Consumers are allowed to sell electricity and then claim all kinds of privileges, so who could not justify the creation of IPPs that could be used for National Grid - reasoning and IPP, CPP? And the logic assigned to all classes like SSP was justified in this way - from the year 1999 and more importantly, the policies of 1994 and 2002. Yes were introduced, the claimant had never considered it. An IPP; this would be extremely inappropriate if

P L D 2017 Sindh 520 

Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J

Messrs BHANERO ENERGY LTD. and others—Plaintiffs

versus

SUI SOUTHERN GAS CO. LIMITED—Defendant

Suits Nos. 1145 to 1150 and 1263, 1307 of 2008, 367, 1616, 1783 of 2014, 192 and- 572 of 2015, decided on 30th June, 2015.

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

—S. 15—Captive Power (CP) and Independent Power Producers (IPP)—Plaintiff was holding licence to generate electricity and it claimed to be entitled to Sui Gas tariff applicable to IPPs on the ground that it was selling electricity in bulk either to its sister concern or to any other independent entity—Validity—Independent Power Producers after executing all agreements provided their energy produced by them either to national grid or to Bulk Power Consumers through national grid— Distinction between Captive Power and Independent Power Producer was justified as any corporate entity for the purpose of its sole benefit could incorporate any company for uninterrupted supply of energy tb its sister concerns and could at the same time claim concession as being Independent Power Producers, which could not provide a fair opportunity to all other entities to thrive in such competitive market— Such prerogative/concessions and indulgence were for independent Power Producers which provided energy to National Grid to overcome shortfall irrespective of their interest as to whom such energy was being provided— If IPPs were allowed to sell electricity to consumers of their choice and then claim all sorts of concession then it could not justify reasoning of creating IPPs who were to cater National Grid— Reasoning and logics assigned to all such classes such as IPP, CPP and SPP were thus justified—Since the year 1999 and more importantly since the Policies of 1994 and 2002 were introduced, plaintiff had never considered it to be an IPP; it would be highly inequitable if an entity was allowed to repudiate a fÓrm;er instance or act to deny a constant approach of another entity or person who had been all along insisting on it constantly—Plaintiff could not be considered as Independent Power Producer and it failed to establish the same—Suit was dismissed in circumstances. [p. 527] A & B

Makhdoom Ali Khan and Hyder Ali Khan for Plaintiffs (in Suit No. 1145 of 2008).

Ghulam Murtaza for Plaintiffs (in Suit No. 1263 of 2008).

Muhammad Ameen Bundukda and Muhammad Ishaq for Plaintiffs (in Suit No.572 of 2015).

Asim Iqbal and Farmanullah for Defendants.

Date of hearing: 27th May, 2015.

list of advocates from Nowshera lawyer