Abid Aziz Sheikh, J. This consolidated judgment will also decide ICAs mentioned in Appendix A of this judgment as common question of law and facts are involved in all these appeals.
2. Relevant facts which are more or less identical in all these appeals are that respondents have developed private housing schemes and applied for electr ification of said housing schemes to Multan Electric Power Company (MEPCO) (appellant). For electrification of those housing schemes, the appe llant demanded "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) from the respective Development Authorities to the effect that the master plan of the society has been approved by the concerned Development Authorities. The respondent being aggrieved filed constitutional petitions which were disposed of with direction that MEPCO will not demand NOC from Multan Development Authority (MDA)/Civic or concerned Authority for the electrification of the colony . The appellant being aggrieved of said direction in various writ petitions filed these appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the requirement of NOC is prescribed under WAPDA Guidelines dated 26.09.1993 and also MEPCO Office Order dated 07.11.2019. He submits that even under relevant rules, the respondents are bound to procure NOC from the Development Authorities. He submits that some of the appeals were withdrawn because the housing schemes already agreed before learned Single Bench to produce NOC from the concerned Development Authorities. He further submits that the requirement of NOC being a policy matter could not be interfered in the constitutional jurisdiction. He placed reliance on M/s Power Construction Corporation of China Ltd. Through Authorized Representative vs. Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman W APDA and 2 others ( PLD 2017 SC 83 ).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that as per Policy of NEPRA dated 13.01.2021, there is no requirement of approved map or site plan or NOC by the concerned authorities for electrification. He submits that National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) being regulato ry authority , its policy is binding on MEPCO. He further submits that the appellant has withdrawn some of the ICAs including ICA No.90/2020 and also provided electricity to various housing societies without NOC from the development authorities, hence respondents have been discriminated. The learned counsel placed reliance on Chief Executive, GEPCO and 3 others vs. Asghar Ali Rana (2018 YLR 1391 ) to argue that being vested rights already accrued, the NOC cannot be demanded.
5. Arguments heard. The single moot legal question involved in all these appeals is that whether MEPCO could demand NOC from the concerned development authorities to the effect that housing society is duly approved, for the electrification of respondents housing societies. Admittedly appellant is licencee of NEPRA for distribution of electricity in the territory specified as per term and condition of licence. MEPCO is company though owned and controlled by the Federal Government but having its own Board of Directors to run and manage the affairs of the company .
6. The Board of Directors of MEPCO in its meeting held on 26.10.2019 accorded approved for implementation of revised SOPs for external electrification of housing schemes/colonies/ societies and accordingly SOPs and guidelines were issued through Office Order dated 07.11.2019. For convenience, the relevant SOP is reproduced hereunder:- Documents required to be submitted by the sponsor of housing scheme opted for one point supply .
1. Approval from respective Development Authority/T own Municipal Administration/Cantonment Board/Concerned Civic Authority . This includes: Approval Letter Approved Master plan of society with sanction letter .
The above SOP shows that for supply of electricity , the sponsor of the society is required to provide approval from the respective Development Authority including approval letter and approved master plan of the society with sanction letter . Even before appellant company was constituted, the WAPDA had similar standards and criteria for electrification of housing schemes. The said criteria is mentioned in WAPDA Officer Order dated 26.10.1993 and relevant clause is reproduced as under:-
(1) The lay out plan, duly approved and signed by the concerned Department/Authority or Local Body alongwith letter of approval shall be supplied by the sponsor/consultant with design documents to ensure the authenticity of approval of the competent authority .
7. It is relevant to note that beside above SOPs and criteria, in exercise of power under section 191 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance), The Punjab Private Housing Schemes and Land Sub-Division Rules, 2010 (Rules) have been framed. Rule 30 of said Rules deals with electricity and street light plan of the society and rule 2(ix) defines Developer . For ease of reference, these provisions are reproduced hereunder:-
2. Definitions:- In these rules: (ix). "developer" means a company or a cooperative society or a firm or an owner of land who intends to develop a scheme or who has developed a scheme after approval.
30. Electricity and street light plan-
(1) A developer shall
(a) prepare design and specifications of electricity and street light in accordance with law, rules, master plan and guidelines of Local Government responsible for approval of the same; (b)submit, within one year of the sanction of the scheme, these design and specifications to WAPDA responsible for provision of electricity and street light for approval; and
(c) A developer shall ensure that designs are prepared by an electrical engineer registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council and approved by W APDA responsible for provision of electricity .
(2) WAPDA shall, within twenty days, convey objections, if any, to a developer under intimation of a Town Municipal Administration, a T ehsil Municipal Administration or a Development Authority .
The plain reading of definition of word "Developer" shows that it means a compa ny, co-operative society , firm, or owner of land who intend to develop a scheme or has developed a scheme after approval. Under rule 30, only such developer can submit design and specification of electricity in accordance with law, rules, master plan and guidelines of Local Government responsible for approval of such scheme and submit within one year of the sanction of the scheme. Rule further provides that in case there is any objection, the WAPDA shall convey those objections to the developer under intimation to the development authority .
8. The above referred office order dated 07.11.2019 of MEPCO, Standards and Criteria of WAPDA dated 26.10.1993 and Rules, specifically provide for the approval of the respective development authority for electrification of the housing schemes. The obvious purpose of prior approval of scheme, is to protect the interest of general public and to ensure that hous ing schemes are duly approved before they apply for electrification and offer plots to public at large.
9. The NEPRA letter dated 13.01.2021 referred to by learned counsel for the respondents, shows that same relates to rural areas only where application is for second connection or extension of permanent/regular connection already existed or for the premises which is located inside approved housing scheme. For ready reference, the relevant part of said instructions is reproduced hereunder:- (DISCO to insert its name) in case of rural areas where map/site plan/layout plan/NOC are not applicable required. i. There shall be no requirement of approved map or approved site plan or approved layout plan (LOP) or NOC by the Civic Agency/Authority for another connection or for extensions reduction of load where already any permanent/regular connection exists at the premises. ii. There shall be no requirement of appro ved map or approved site plan or approv ed layout plan (LOP) or NOC by the Civil Agency/Authority for premises which are located inside approved housing scheme/societies/ plazas/multi storey buildings. iii. There shall be no requirement of approved map or approved site plan or approved layout plan (LOP) or NOC by the Civil Agency/Authority in the areas where the land is either not acquired by the concerned Civil Agency/Authority or the area is not developed by the concerned Civil Agency/Authority .
The careful reading of above instructions of NEPRA demonstrates that these are exceptions to general rule and unless the case be covered under these exceptions, the approval of scheme and NOC is required for electrification.
These instructions by NEPRA rather further support the claim of appellant, that electricity connection cannot be provided to housing societies unless they are approved and an NOC produced from the concerned Civic Agency/Authority .
10. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that some of the ICAs have been withdrawn by MEPCO has been duly explained by the learned counsel for the appellant, that where the learned Single Benches, already directed to those societies/petitioners to obtain NOC from the Development Autho rity for supply of electricity , the appeals were withdrawn. Further the case of Asghar Ali Rana supra referred to by the respondents, does not relate to a housing society but same is of an individual regarding his domestic house electricity connection, therefore, said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
11. The honourable Supreme Court in Government of Sindh through the Chief Secretary and others vs. Khalil Ahmed and others (1994 SCMR 782), held that acts of public functionaries are not to be set at naught in collateral proceedings rather the Courts are under legal obligation to explore every possible explanation for their validity . The honourable Supreme Court in The Chairman, East Pakistan Railway Board, Chttagong etc. vs. Abdul Majid Sardar , Ticket Collector , Pakistan (PLD 1965 SC 725) and Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore through its Chairman vs. The Custodian, Evacuee Property , West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1971 SC 811) held that the act performed and order made by public functionaries deserve due regard by the Court and every possible explanation for their validity be explored.
12. Similarly in Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and others vs. Said Rehman and others (2013 SCMR 642), the honourable Supreme Court held that statutory authorities and functionaries cannot deviate or act in derogation to rules or regulations applicable. The public authorities are required to perform particular function within the frame work of law and not its derogation. The same view was also expressed in Secreta ry, Government of Punjab and others vs. Khalid Hussain Hamdani and 2 others (2013 SCMR 817), Muhammad Yasin vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary , Establishment Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2012 SC 132), Muhammad Afsar vs. Malik Muhammad Farooq (2012 SCMR 274), Raja Mujahid Muzaf far and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (2012 SCMR 1651 ), Watan Party and another vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2011 SC 997), Suo motu case In the matter of (Violation of Public Procurement Rules, 2004) (PLD 2011 SC 927) and Tariq Aziz ud Din and others (2010 SCMR 1301 ). It is also well settled that where law provides things to be done in particular manner , then it must be done in that manner and further no one has vested right in policy decision of the Authority and Courts also cannot interfere in policy matters unless they are found irrational and arbitrary by the Court.
13. The perusal of impugned orders show that without holding the relevant Rules, SOPs or instructions being unconstitutional, the appellant was directed not to demand any NOC from the Development Authorities for the electrification of the housing societies. In view of aforesaid settled propositions of law, the learned Single Judge could not direct the appellant/MEPCO not to demand NOC from the development authorities, as such direction would amount to direct the public functionaries to act in derogation of the applicable rules and policy .
14. In view of above discussion, all these appeals are allowed to the effect that appellant MEPCO may demand required documents including NOC from the concerned Development Authorities, under the applicable SOPs, Policy and Rules for the supply of electricity to the housing societies.
S# CASE NO TITLE 1 ICA No. 143-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ ETC 2 ICA No. 151-20 MEPCO VS ANSAR IL YAS ETC 3 ICA No. 340-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD AZAM ETC 4 ICA No. 264-20 MEPCO VS SHAKIL SAJID ETC 5 ICA No. 283-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD MUBEEN HAIDER ETC 6 ICA No. 156-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD SHAHID ETC 7 ICA No. 263-20 MEPCO VS IMRAN ASGHAR ETC 8 ICA No. 280-20 MEPCO VS T ALLA T MEHMOOD ETC 9 ICA No. 284-20 MEPCO VS ALLAH W ASAY ETC 10 ICA No. 286-20 MEPCO VS SHAHZAD GLL ETC 11 ICA No. 285-20 MEPCO VS ADNAN SHAMS ETC 12 ICA No. 282-20 MEPCO VS SARDAR MAJID AZEEM ETC 13 ICA No. 155-20 MEPCO VS SAUD SA TTAR RAMA Y ETC 14 ICA No. 347-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD RIZW AN ETC 15 ICA No. 149-20 MEPCO VS SH MUHAMMAD AFZAL ETC 16 ICA No. 79-20 MEPCO VS ARSLAN ALI ETC 17 ICA No. 80-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD T OUQEER UL HASSAN ETC 18 ICA No. 152-20 MEPCO VS T ARIQ JA VED ETC 19 ICA No. 154-20 MEPCO VS EHTSHAM UL HAQ ETC 20 ICA No. 144-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD YASIR SAITHI ETC 21 ICA No. 281-20 MEPCO VS GHULAM HASHIM ETC 22 ICA No. 275-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD AMJAD ETC 23 ICA No. 266-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD NAIM ETC 24 ICA No. 276-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD RAZZAQ ETC 25 ICA No. 299-20 MEPCO VS ASAD MEHMOOD ETC. 26 ICA No. 293-20 NEPCO VS LIAQA T ALI ETC 27 ICA No. 248-20 MEPCO VS ARSHAD JA VED ETC 28 ICA No. 247-20 MEPCO VS LIAQA T ALI ETC 29 ICA No. 249-20 MEPCO VS HAFIZ MUHAMMAD AZHAR BODLA ETC 30 ICA No. 153-20 MEPCO VS SAEED UR REHMAN SHAH ETC 31 ICA No. 296-20 MEPCO VS RANA MUHAMMAD ASLAM ETC 32 ICA No. 298-20 MEPCO VS ABDUL SAMI ETC 33 ICA No. 302-20 MEPCO VS FIRDOS F ATIMA ETC 34 ICA No. 294-20 MEPCO VS T AHIR NADEEM ETC 35 ICA No. 295-20 MEPCO VS P ARVAIZ AHMAD ETC 36 ICA No. 297-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE ETC 37 ICA No. 319-20 MEPCO VS INAM UL HAQ ETC 38 ICA No. 303-20 MEPCO VS HAFEEZ UR REHMAN ETC 39 ICA No. 330-20 MEPCO VS HASEEBA RAMZAN ETC 40 ICA No. 304-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD ISRAR AKHT AR ETC 41 ICA No. 337-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD AZEEM ETC 42 ICA No. 320-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD F AISAL IFTEKHAR ETC 43 ICA No. 321-20 MEPCO VS QAMAR ZAMAN ETC 44 ICA No. 307-20MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEHMOOD KHAKW ANI ETC 45 ICA No. 339-20 MEPCO VS ALI IMRAN ETC 46 ICA No. 309-20 MEPCO VS MAZAHARA SHAMS ETC 47 ICA No. 322-20 MEPCO VS IFTEKHAR AHMAD ETC 48 ICA No. 315-20 MEPCO VS SHAGUFT A TAHIR ETC 49 ICA No. 325-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD ETC 50 ICA No. 331-20 MEPCO VS SUMERA SHAMS ETC 51 ICA No. 306-20 MEPCO VS RAZIA PARVEEN ETC 52 ICA No. 326-20 MEPCO VS SHAHZAD LA TIF ETC 53 ICA No. 318-20 MEPCO VS IRF AN SHAMS ETC 54 ICA No. 336-20 MEPCO VS ABDUL MAJEED ETC 55 ICA No. 305-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD AHMAD ETC 56 ICA No. 324-20 MEPCO VS KH MUHAMMAD F AKHAR UL MAHMOOD ETC 57 ICA No. 314-20 MEPCO VS SALMAN AFZAL ETC 58 ICA No. 338-20 MEPCO VS INT AZAR HUSSAIN ETC 59 ICA No. 308-20 MEPCO VS KHIZAR EHSAN ETC 60 ICA No. 278-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD F ARHAN ZIA ETC 61 ICA No. 277-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD MUSHT AQ ETC 62 ICA No. 273-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD T AHIR IQBAL ETC 63 ICA No. 272-20 MEPCO VS REHAN ZIA ETC 64 ICA No. 271-20 MEPOC VS EHSAN IJAZ ETC 65 ICA No. 279-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE SALEEM ETC 66 ICA No. 270-20 MEPCO VS F AYYAZ AHMAD ETC 67 ICA No. 327-20 MEPCO VS SHAGUFT A NAHEED ETC 68 ICA No. 274-20 MEPCO VS ZAIN UL ABIDEEN ETC 69 ICA No. 267-20 MEPCO VS SHAKOOR AHMAD ETC 70 ICA No. 351-20 MEPCO VS CH RAHEEL AKRAM ETC 71 ICA No. 260-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD ASHIQ ETC 72 ICA No. 345-20 MEPCO VS GHULAM ARBI ETC 73 ICA No. 269-20 MEPCO VS HAMZA WAQAS T AHIR ETC 74 ICA No. 255-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD BILAL ETC 75 ICA No. 106-20 MEPCO VS NAEEM ASHRAF ETC 76 ICA No. 93-20 MEPCO VS ABDUL HAYEE CHOUDAR Y ETC 77 ICA No. 87-20 MEPCO VS CH MUHAMMAD AKRAM ETC 78 ICA No. 95-20 MEPCO VS ISRAR UL HAQ ETC 79 ICA No. 259-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD JAMEEL ETC 80 ICA No. 104-20 MEPCO VS USMAN AHMAD ETC 81 ICA No. 257-20 MEPCO VS ABDUL WAHID ETC 82 ICA No. 97-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD ASGHAR ETC 83 ICA No. 103-20 MEPCO VS RANA MUHAMMAD ASLAM ETC 84 ICA No. 252-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN RANA ETC 85 ICA No. 100-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ETC 86 ICA No. 261-20 MEPCO VS IBAD ALI ETC 87 ICA No. 268-20 MEPCO VS ABDUL HAYEE CH ETC 88 ICA No. 105-20 MEPCO VS HAMZA RAZZAQ ETC 89 ICA No. 91-20 MEPCO VS KHAN SHABBIR ETC 90 ICA No. 265-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE ETC 91 ICA No. 101-20 MEPCO VS NOOR MUHAMMAD ETC 92 ICA No. 98-20 MEPCO VS T ALIB HUSSAIN BHA TTI ETC 93 ICA No. 96-20 MEPCO VS HAMEED ASGHAR ETC 94 ICA No. 262-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD NA WAZ ETC 95 ICA No. 94-20 MEPCO VS NASEER AHMAD ETC 96 ICA No. 85-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD RIAZ ETC 97 ICA No. 254-20 MEPCO VS HAFIZ MUHAMMAD AZHAR BODLA ETC 98 ICA No. 84-20 MEPCO VS NASEER AHMAD ETC 99 ICA No. 253-20MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEHMOOD KHAKW ANI ETC 100 ICA No. 251-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD JUNAID SADIQ ETC 101 ICA No. 256-20 MEPCO VS ABDUL REHMAN ETC 102 ICA No. 323-20 MEPCO VS SHAZIA ANSAR ETC 103 ICA No. 328-20 MEPCO VS IRSHAD BEGUM ETC 104 ICA No. 352-20 MEPCO VS MAQSOOD AHMAD ETC 105 ICA No. 350-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD LA TIF ETC 106 ICA No. 346-20 MEPCO VS ALLAH DAD KHAN ETC 107 ICA No. 348-20 MEPCO VS AYESHA RAMZAN ETC 108 ICA No. 342-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD ARIF ISHAQ ETC 109 ICA No. 349-20 MEPCO VS MIAN ABDUL RAUF QURESHI ETC 110 ICA No. 353-20 MEPCO VS MUHAMMAD YOUNAS T AHIR ETC 111 ICA No. 354-20 MEPCO VS ABDUL MAJEED AYYAZ ETC 112 ICA No. 341-20 MEPCO VS ZESHAN ASAD ETC 113 ICA No. 344-20 MEPCO VS RASHID ASEEM ETC 114 ICA No. 343-20 MEPCO VS IRF AN NASIR ETC 115 ICA No. 258-20 MEPCO VS ZIA REHMAN AHMAD ETC revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.