ORDER AJMAL MIAN, A.C J.- By this common order we intend to dispose of the above review petitions, whereby review is sought of the majority' judgment of this Court in the aforesaid appeals.
2. The afore-mentioned review petitions had come up for hearing before this Bench on 9.6.1997.
When we issued notice to Wapda and Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned Senior Cotinsel for Wapda. Only on one point as noticed in the said order dated 9.6.1997.
3. In response to the above notice. Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned Sr. ASC. Has put in appearance and has candidly submitted that since this Court has held that surcharge and additional surcharge are part of the electricity tariff, it must necessarily follow that the consumers, who were, entitled to 50 of concession on the tariff, would also be entitled to the aforesaid concession on the surcharge and additional surcharge.
4. We are inclined to take the same view. There seems to be an error apparent on the face of para 71 of the majority judgment, wherein it has been observed that "the consumers who are still enjoying 50% concession in the electricity tariff are entitled to the above concession on the items of surcharge and additional surcharge."
5. The above observations have been construed by Wapda as if the same were applicable only to those consumers who were enjoying the above concession when the afore stated judgment was rendered and that the same 40 were not applicable to those consumers who were included in the negative list prior to the rendering of the above judgment. We allow the aforementioned civil review petitions to the extent of clarifying para 71 of the majority' judgment that the consumers, who were entitled to 50% concession on the tariff, would also be entitled to 50% concession on the surcharge and additional surcharge which will include the consumers who have been listed in the negative list up to the date when the negative list Was put into operation. The above review petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
6. As regards Civil Review Petition No. 78 of 1996 filed by Wapda. No ground has been made out for review' of the above judgment. The same is dismissed.