1. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeks to challenge the order dated 11.05.2016 passed in appeal by National Electric Power Regulatory Authority ("NEPRA"). The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Provincial Office of Inspection/Electric Inspector/Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad under Section 38(3) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of the Electric Power Act, 1997 ("Act, 1997").
2. 2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any jurisdictional defect to have crept in the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Electric Inspector and affirmed by the Appellate Board of NEPRA in appeal.
3. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was an outer time limit of 90 days for decision by the Electric Inspector which has not been observed and which rendered the decision of the Electric, Inspector a nullity. This submission of the learned counsel has been dealt with by the Appellate Board and in any case is fallacious. The short and simple answer rendered by the Appellate Board was that the decision was made under Section 38 of the Act, 1997 and not in terms of Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910. Therefore, the outer time limit of 90 days was inapplicable.
4. 4.The learned counsel next contended that the complaint had to be filed against the company (the petitioner herein) and the fact that it was filed against the officers and not against the company renders it invalid and incompetent. This submission of the learned counsel once again is without any basis. A perusal of the complaint slows that the FESCO has been made Respondent No, 1 and has been sued through its Chief Executive Officer. Thus the company which is the petitioner is a party to the proceedings.
5. 5.Be that as it may, there is no requirement in law that the company ought to be made a party to the proceedings and no complaint before NEPRA can be filed in respect of the officers of FESCO.
6. 6.lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned passed by order NEPRA is not a speaking and offends the rule enshrined in Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, a reading and analysis of the impugned order passed by NEPRA would I show that the order is based on reasons, and in fact the order passed by the Electric Inspector has been set-aside on two counts at least which shows an application of independent mind. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon case law which need not be adverted to as the precedents cited by the learned counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
7. 7.In view of the above, this petition is without merit and is dismissed.