' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.-This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.5454, 5464, 5242, 5243, 5465, 5463, 5461, 5462, 5460, 5455, 5453, 5459, 5458, 5457, 5456, 5452, 5241, 5239, 5651, 5432, 5240, 5650, 5649, 5446, 5645, 5653, 5654, 5466 and 5652 of 2010 involving common questions of law and facts.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis in all the captioned petitions are that petitioners in each of these petitions are the consumers of the respondent Distribution Company and have filed these petitions to call in question the validity of notification No,S.R.O. 149(1)/ 2010 and decision dated 22-2-2010 issued and passed by respondent NEPRA pertaining to the fuel adjustment charges. It is the case of the petitioners in all these petitions that the respondent NEPRA has no authority or jurisdiction to issue any notification regarding fuel adjustment charges or with regard to the tariff, as such powers under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (The NEPRA Act) does not vest with NEPRA. It is further contended that the impugned decision has been passed without notice or affording opportunity of hearing. It is also contended that notification is retroactive, hence, illegal.
3. Pursuant to this Court's order, detailed report and comments have been filed on behalf of respondent Distribution Company. It is the case of the said respondent that by virtue of proviso to section 31(4) of the NEPRA Act introduced through an amending Ordinance, the notification regarding fuel adjustment charges is to be issued by NEPRA, It is also the case of said respondent that prior to the new decision, notice was given in the national press, in response whereto, APTMA entered appearance and contested the fuel adjustment charges in question, therefore, the requirements of law have been followed. Petitioners chose not to intervene the matter, hence, are estopped from raising any grievance (s). It is further contended that the notification is not retroactive as contended by the petitioners, inasmuch as, under the Tariff Determination, fuel adjustment is to be determined upon consumption. Said determination has not been challenged and cannot be called in question at this stage. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings pertaining to the month of January, 2010, 10-12-2009, which determination is not the subject-matter of lis before this Court nor has been challenged. In terms of said determination, fuel adjustment charges were to be determined periodically on the basis of consumption, therefore, the fuel adjustment charges for the month of January, 2010 could only be determined thereafter, as has been done in the instant case by initiating proceedings under section 31(4) of the NEPRA Act in February, 2010. Process employed by respondents appears to be in accordance with law, as interpreted by this Court. No illegality has been pointed at the bar. It has also been noticed that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners could not find any fault on the factual plane with regard to the fuel adjustment charges.
6. In view of above, it is clear and obvious that the notification in question has been issued under the powers duly vested by law in NEPRA on the basis of decision pursuant to an earliest tariff determination after due process as envisaged by law, and, therefore, no exception can be taken thereto. Consequently, these petitions being devoid of any merit are dismissed accordingly.