MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J. - Through number of writ petitions the petitioners have assailed the recovery of Fuel Adjustment Charges debited to petitioners from the month of April to onward, on the ground that under Section 31(4) Proviso (II) NEPRA authorities can only revise, review and approve the tariff on account of any variation in fuel charges on monthly basis. The Statute, Regulation, Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electricity Power Act, 1997 does not provide any power to authority for imposing fuel adjustment charges for the past months. The petitioners have also assailed the vires of Section 31(4) of the NEPRA Act.
2. The claim of petitioners is that fuel adjustment charges are in fact the price of theft which certain consumers and even the power project owners/suppliers are committing. NEPRA is just endorsing their account without conducting any micro audit. NEPRA being authority meant to perform duties in the interest of public but NEPRA is working for the benefit of energy suppliers and manufacturers.
3. Writ petitions were admitted for regular hearing on 19.10.2011 and recovery of fuel adjustment charges from the month of April to onward were suspended.
4. A number of learned counsel for the parties argued their case and today the petitioners have filed two applications, one for summoning of auditors' report and other one for impleading the IPPs as respondents and amendment of petition and as such the arguments were not concluded.
5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that due to restraining order passed by this Court Federal Government till today has suffered a loss of Rs. 80 Billion and in case restraining order is not modified or vacated the entire system will be collapsed.
6. As it is a question of public importance, prima facie the payment of electricity bills is out of approach of a domestic as well industrial consumers.
7. Learned counsel for respondents, Khawaja Tariq Hareem, Advocate, offers that respondents are ready to withhold the payment of fuel adjustment charges on domestic consumer to the extent of 150 units as for 50 units respondents have already allowed the said concession. However after a long discussion with the consent of learned counsel for respondents it is agreed that respondents will not debit the fuel adjustment charges on domestic consumers upto the extent of 350 units.
8. The petitioners are industrial units and ultimately they have to debit the electricity charges on end consumer in case of vacation of restraining order.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that their units will be closed and thousands of their employees will be unemployed and as such atleast respondents be directed to withhold the fuel adjustment charges for the past months i.e. April to July, 2011.
10. As a sum of Rs. 80 Billion has become struck up it is not in interest of entire system of electricity generation and distribution, the request of learned counsel for petitioners could not acceded to, however, may approach the respondents for payment of fuel adjustment charges which were suspended vide order dated 19.10.2011 in easy instalments. In case petitioners approach the respondents, the respondents will sympathetically consider the petitioner's request as again fuel charges will be burdened on the public at large. Restraining order dated 19.10.2011 is thus, modified in the above-said terms.