Pakistan Case Law
1997 SCMR 1669

GANDAF STEEL INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1997 SCMR 1669
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Review Petitions Nos.57 to 78 of 1996 Civil Appeal No.65/1996 C.R.P.
Date1997-06-13
Judge(s)Ajmal Mian, Actg. C.J Irshad Hasan Khan, Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, Nasir Aslam Zahid and Munawar Ahmad Mirza
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns review petitions filed against a majority judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding electricity tariff concessions. The core legal question was whether consumers entitled to a 50% concession on electricity tariffs were also entitled to the same concession on 'surcharge' and 'additional surcharge' levied by WAPDA, and whether this applied to consumers previously placed on a 'negative list'. The Court held that since surcharges are integral components of the electricity tariff, the 50% concession must logically extend to these charges. The Court identified an error apparent on the face of the record in paragraph 71 of its previous judgment, which had been restrictively interpreted by WAPDA. Consequently, the Court clarified that the concession applies to all consumers entitled to the tariff reduction, including those included in the negative list up to the date that list became operational. The principle laid down is that where surcharges are legally deemed part of the tariff, any concession applicable to the base tariff must inherently apply to those surcharges as well.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Are surcharge and additional surcharge considered part of the electricity tariff for the purpose of calculating concessions?
  • Does a 50% concession on electricity tariffs extend to surcharges and additional surcharges?
  • Does the concession on electricity surcharges apply to consumers included in the negative list?
electricity tariffsurchargeadditional surchargereview petitionconcessionWAPDAnegative list

ORDER

AJMAL MIAN, ACTG. C.J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above review petitions, whereby review is sought of the majority judgment of this Court in the aforesaid appeals.

2. The aforementioned review petitions had come up for hearing before this Bench on 9-6-1997, when we issued notice to WAPDA and Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned senior counsel for WAPDA, only on one point as noticed in the said order dated 9-6-1997.

3. In response to the above notice, Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, has put in appearance and has candidly submitted that since this Court has held that surcharge and additional surcharge are part of the electricity tariff, it must necessarily follow that the consumers, who were entitled to 50% concession on the tariff, would also be entitled to the aforesaid concession on the surcharge and additional surcharge.

4. We are inclined to take the same. View. There seems to be an error apparent on the face of para. 71 of the majority judgment, wherein it has been observed that "the consumers who are still enjoying 50% concession in the electricity tariff are entitled to the above concession on the items of surcharge and additional surcharge".

5. The above observations have been construed by WAPDA as if the same were applicable only to those consumers who were enjoying the above concession when the afore stated judgment was rendered and that the same were not applicable to those consumers who were included in the negative list prior to the rendering of the above judgment. We allow the aforementioned civil review petitions to the extent of clarifying para. 71 of the majority judgment that the consumers, who were entitled to 50% concession on the tariff, would also be entitled to 50% concession on the surcharge and additional surcharge which will include the consumers who have been listed in the negative list up to the date when the negative list was put into operation. The above review petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

6. As regards Civil Review Petition No.78 of 1996 filed by WAPDA, no ground has been made out for review of the above judgment. The same is dismissed.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.