The Lahore High Court on Wednesday suspended a notification of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) for recovery of 20 percent fuel adjustment surcharge for the months of April and May from industrial consumers in electricity bills for October.
Staying the matter, the court restrained respondents including WAPDA and NEPRA from recovering 20 percent fuel adjustment surcharge in bills for October or cutting electricity connections for non-payment of bills until the next date of hearing on November 10.
Justice Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan passed the order on 35 identical petitions of Muhammad Javed, partner M/s Anwer Steel Mills Bhani Road Shalimar Lahore, Mian Yaseen, partner in Nazir Steel Mills Tajgarh Manawan Lahore and 33 other industrial units, shocked by inflated bills for October that contained 20 percent fuel adjustment surcharge for the past months.
The petitioners named the federal government, WAPDA, NEPRA, NTPC, Ministry of Gas and Natural Resources, Ministry of Natural Resources, LESCO and Punjab government as respondents.
The petitioners through their counsels submitted that acting retrospectively WAPDA, NEPRA AND LESCO were unlawfully recovering 20 percent fuel adjustment surcharge for the past months, which were now “past and enclosed transaction” between the consumers and power distribution companies.
They said the notification issued retrospectively on August 23 by the respondents imposed huge amount in their bills for October under an unlawfully added proviso to S 31(4) of the Regulation, Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act 1997 (NEPRA Act 1997).
The petitioners said they received bills on the 10th of each month and last date for its payment is 20th or 21st and they paid the bills for April and May. Now after a lapse of five months, WAPDA had added Rs 2 to Rs 1 million additional in the industrial bills according to the 20 percent surcharge, which will be a loss that they would never be able to cover from their price of products of past months, they said.
After hearing the arguments, the judge suspended the notification until further orders and sought reply from the respondents by November 10.
