' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---The Petitioners in this case and in the connected petitions i,e, Writ Petitions Nos.4305/2004, 4306/2004, 4307/.2004, 8018/2004, 681/2005, 1998/2005 and 6110/2005 have almost identical grievance that their request for reduction of load had either not been attended to properly or rejection was illegal and unwarranted. A direction is, thus, sought to the respondents to reduce their sanctioned load.
2: The petitions are being contested.The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Messrs Century Paper and Board Mills Ltd v. WAPDA and another 2002 YLR 2224 as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through judgment dated 18-4-2005 in C.P. No,2626-L/2002 and contends that even under the policy dated 2-2-2005 the petitioners are entitled to reduction of load; the learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the petitions by relying upon provisions of section 22 of Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (Act XL of 1997). Mr. Anwar Kamal, Advocate has also referred to Standard Chartered Bank v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Through Managing Director PLD 2001 Karachi 344 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 14-11-2001 whereby leave was granted by their lordships against the judgment of the Karachi high Court.
4. In the context of the grievance of the petitioners, reference to the judgment in the case of Messrs Century Paper and Board Mills Ltd. (supra) is eminently appropriate. It was observed by his Lordship Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J. As he then was not a Judge of the apex Court of the Country, that:-- "6. The reasons of the respondents that reduction in load cannot be allowed unless some machinery is physically removed does not seem to be fair. There was time when WAPDA was short of electricity and particularly in summer season, it had to resort to long periods of load-shedding, which resulted in suspension of work in factories and so on. If, in term of policy of the Government the petitioner installed its own power plant it does not seem fair and equitable on the part of the respondents to insist that it will charge the petitioner on the basis of originally sanctioned load. The argument against this view is that WAPDA will suffer loss as under the contract it has to purchase electricity from private power producers, but this argument is equally available to the petitioner.
Should the petitioner be condemned to pay for something, which it never utilizes and therefore, suffers loss. To my mind this argument does not help the respondents. The two judgments from Karachi jurisdiction relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, may not be strictly relevant but the case reported as Messrs Ilyas Marine and Associated Ltd. v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. 1995 CLC 596 does indicate that the licensee was not entitled to charge the consumer on the basis of sanctioned load of 150 KW, after the request of the consumer to reduce the load to 50 KW. The licensee was directed to refund the amount of fix cartages for the period of two years that the licensee kept the request for reduction under consideration. In fact the consumer was granted the amount of interest on this amount.
7. For what has been stated above I accept this petition and declare the impugned decision dated 27th September, 1997 as without lawful authority and consequently of no legal effect. Respondents are directed to accept the request for reduction of load with effect from 26-9-1997 the date of impugned decision and to adjust the account accordingly with effect from the said' date. No order as to costs."
5. The matter was agitated by WAPDA before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which petition was dismissed by refusing leave on 18-4-2005 but paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment of their Lordships are quite instructive which are reproduced here:- "4. On an earlier date of hearing the learned Advocate.Supreme Court for the petitioners had informed us that the question of reduction of load sanctioned for different consumers was under active consideration with the petitioners and some decision was likely to be made in the matter.
The learned Advocate Supreme Court has, today, placed before us a policy decision taken by the WAPDA in the said connection which is reproduced hereunder:-- ' The authority allowed reduction of load up to fifty per cent of existing load but not less than the minimum threshold of 500 KW, whichever is higher, in respect of B-3 Industries, who have either switched over to self-generation or are in the process of setting up the plants, without the requirement to have higher capacity transformers replaced by lower capacity transformers and physical removal of motive load subject to the following conditions:--
(a) the requests for reduction of load by such consumers shall be submitted before June, 30, 2005 in order to take effect from July 1, 2005. The applications for reduction of load, received after the start of the next financial year, would be considered for implementation with effect from next financial year.
(b) In case the maximum demand of such consumers, who have been allowed reduction of load, exceeds the reduced load, this maximum demand shall be the sanctioned load with effect from date of increase.
5. What transpires from perusal of the above quoted decision is that WAPDA has accepted the decision taken by the learned High Court through the impugned judgment with the only reservation that the WAPDA wishes this decision to take effect from 1st July, 2005 and is not agreeable to extend the said concessions to the consumers who had requested for grant of the same during the periods of time prior to 1-7-2005. We have not been able to appreciate the fixation of the said point of time for the implementation of the said policy and no reasons are forthcoming as to why the earlier application for the said favour should have been discriminated in the said matter.
6. Having thus examined all aspects of the matter, we find that no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment, which, as a matter of policy, has even been accepted by the WAPDA subject only to the commencement date of the implementation of the said policy framed by the WAPDA."
6. The policy decision of WAPDA circulated through letter dated 2-2-2005 which finds mention in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is still in the field. The reasons which prevailed with the learned Judge of this Court in deciding the case of Messrs Century Paper and Board Mills Ltd. And affirmance of the same by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan are quite weighty, leaving no scope for departure therefrom. I respectfully follow the same. There cannot be any cavil or two opinions that a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan binds the parties. The same is entitled to greatest respect and all are expected honour and obey the same.
Since WAPDA was party in the said judgment it binds it. Such is the rationale and objective of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The petitioners who have similar grievance are entitled to be governed by the said judgment, in like manner.
7. It is stated by Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate that review against the said judgment is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Suffice it to observe that mere filing or pendency of the review does not in any way impair the legal efficacy of the judgment unless reversed or reviewed. The respondents should honour and obey the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan so long as it holds the field.
8. The contention as to the import and effect of provisions of Act XL of 1997 in particular section 22 thereof cannot be countenanced in view of the peculiar position obtaining in these cases inasmuch that the Authority (WAPDA) itself has issued its policy decision dated 2-2-2005 notwithstanding the provisions of Act XL of 1997 which policy decision has also received recognition from the apex Court of the country as is referred to above. The reliance of the learned counsel for the respondents on the leave granting order in "Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Standard Chartered Bank etc." is also inapt for the reasons that the order does not show that there was any policy decision by Karachi Electric supply Corporation Ltd. As was taken by WAPDA on 2-2-2005 and also for the reason that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 18- 4-2005 in Messrs Century Paper and Board Mills Ltd.'s case was later in time which still holds the field.
' In view of the above, the petitions are accepted with the direction to the respondents to act in line and accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 18-4-2005 in the case of Messrs Century Paper and Board Mills Ltd. No order as to costs.