LAHORE, Feb 17: The Lahore High Court dismissed on Tuesday a petition challenging the authority of the Water and Power Development Authority to revise and increase electricity tariff.

Justice Syed Tasaddaq Husain Jilani, however, observed that the issues raised in the petition were highly important and concerned the common people as well as making impact on agricultural and industrial sectors. But the superior judiciary could not be expected to assume the role of policy-makers who alone were competent to decide such issues of national interest.

The court further observed that the petitioner's concern for the issue was genuine and right. But the constitution did not authorize courts to open such issues for debate. A number of other fora were available to discus and decide the issues raised in the petition.

Advocate M.D. Tahir had filed the original petition on July 7, 2002, praying that the power price increase as effected by the Wapda be declared unlawful. He submitted an amended petition on the subject a month later.

The Wapda had sought permission for an increase in power tariff by 44 paisa per unit from the National Electricity Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) in the summer of 2002.

The Nepra later allowed Wapda to increase the power rate by 19 paisa a unit. The petition was fixed before the Lahore High Court on July 22, 2002, and notices served on the Wapda and the Nepra. But for months none of the authorities submitted reply.

The petitioner-lawyer had submitted that power tariff was ultimately increased by 44 paisa a unit in August 2002. This was an additional burden on the resources of about 10 million domestic consumers who were made to pay 15 per cent more on the electricity bill.

Similarly, the increase effected for industries was nine paisa a unit, commercial concerns were burdened with another one paisa and an additional charge of 19 paisa per unit was levied on agricultural tube-wells.

Mr Tahir based his argument on the authority of the Wapda to effect a tariff raise after its bifurcation into generation, transmission and distribution companies.

He submitted that the Wapda was not authorized to raise power tariff as such a decision fell solely within the jurisdiction of electricity supply corporations. He said the Wapda's petition was unlawful. Similarly, the Nepra violated its own terms of reference by accepting a petition by the Wapda and then adjudicating in it as a quasi judicial body. The Nepra was only to resolve disputes among different Wapda companies.

Such an act on the part of the Nepra was not in consonance with its regulatory character which required it to entertain such petitions from electric supply companies only.

Another point raised in the petition pertained to the free supply of electricity to Wapda employees which was adding to the damages mainly caused by line losses and theft of power by influential people.

He submitted that the provision of free electricity to Wapda employees was violative of Article 25 of the Constitution which guaranteed equality among citizens.

He stated that since employees of no other government department, including the low-paid staff, were entitled to free electricity, the benefit to Wapda employees was a discrimination and a constitutional anomaly.