September 19, 2008	Friday	Ramazan 18, 1429

LAHORE, Sept 18: In a reply submitted before the Lahore High Court here on Thursday, the Ministry of Water and Power and Wapda said the Nepra had rightly exercised its suo motu power while increasing the electricity tariff as law had authorised it to do so.

The reply came in on various petitions filed by Aptma and industrial units challenging the increase in tariff for commercial consumers.

Wapda said the petitioner -- Aptma -- had no locus standi to file this petition because the intervention request was filed by All Pakistan Textile Association and not by All Pakistan Textile Mills Association, which was the right forum.

The reply said Wapda had no role as far as the determination of tariff was concerned as it was the exclusive domain of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) to protect the rights of consumers, producers and sellers of electricity.

It was further stated that Nepra had prescribed setting procedure and standards with the approval of the federal government. Different electricity supply companies were allowed to make adjustment in power purchase price due to fuel price variation.

The court had already restrained Nepra and distribution companies from implementing the increased tariff. On Thursday, the judge extended the stay order earlier granted in these petitions till Sept 22.

Aptma, two spinning factories and some other companies had moved the petitions. The petitioners through their counsel Mian Mahmood Rashid and others pleaded that the regulator determined the tariff on Feb 23, 2007 and made industrial consumers pay substantially higher rate of electricity. But despite enduring sufferings, Aptma started making payment in the best national interest.

However, just after 13 days of approval of tariff, the distribution companies like (Lesco), Fesco, Gepco and Mepco filed a review petition with Nepra.

The petitioners said Nepra did not have the review powers under the law but it proceeded with and accepted their review petitions without giving any notice to them or their parent association Aptma.

The petitioners argued that with the acceptance of review petitions on Jan 10, 2008 the tariff was hugely enhanced to the greatest disadvantage clearly violating the principle “no one should be condemned unheard.”