PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Thursday temporarily stopped the Peshawar Electric Supply Company (Pesco) from recovering three surcharges in the monthly electricity bills of CNG stations across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by issuing a stay order.

A bench comprising Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Irshad Qaiser issued the order during the hearing into a petition of the All Pakistan CNG Association Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which has 525 members.

The bench observed the suspension of the recovery of three surcharges would be subject to the furnishing of indemnity bonds by petitioners.

The petitioners have challenged the levy of universal obligation fund (UOF) surcharge, debt servicing (DS) surcharge and Neelum Jhelum surcharge saying that act was illegal and unconstitutional on the part of Pesco.

Issues order to Pesco on a petition of filling station owners

Similarly, in another petition of All Pakistan Textile Mills Association having 14 members in the province, the bench suspended the recovery of debt surcharge from them but that would also be subject to furnishing of indemnity bonds by them.

The bench fixed Feb 19 for the next hearing into the petitions and observed until then, impugned surcharges should not be recovered from petitioners.

The respondents in these petitions are National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra), Pesco, Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA) and water and power ministry.

Shumail Ahmad Butt and Qazi Ghulam Dastagir, lawyers for petitioners, contended that the Pesco had no authority to levy such like surcharges in the monthly bills of its consumers in the province as such decision had to be taken by the provincial government under Article 157(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.

They said the surcharges were levied by the Pesco after determination of tariff by the Nepra.

The lawyers said the surcharges had left adverse effect on the consumers as electricity was a basic utility.

They said the surcharges were imposed through different notifications issued under Section 31(5) of the Nepra Act 1997.

The lawyers said the said section was incorporated in the law through Finance Act 2008 which was an illegal mechanism. They said without the approval of the Council of Common Interest, such amendments could not be made to the law through the Finance Act.

Butt said Pesco could not impose such like surcharges after determination of tariff by the Nepra.

He also said even Nepra could not levy such like taxes without the approval of CCI.

The lawyers for petitioners said the surcharges were levied in mysterious manner as consumers were kept in dark about the purpose of these levies.

They said Nepra insisted the debt surcharge was levied to return certain debt outstanding against power distribution companies but had yet to elaborate on the outstanding debt.

The lawyers said the equalisation surcharge or UOF was introduced to meet the line losses for which the consumers regularly paying their bills were not responsible.

The lawyers said under Article 157 (3) of the Constitution the provincial government had the power to levy such like taxes.

Lawyer for the Pesco Abdur Rauf Rohaila opposed the grant of interim relief to petitioners insisting his client will suffer huge losses if the sought-after stay order was issued.

Published in Dawn, January 23rd, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play