HC Judgment Consolidates Petitions Challenging Electricity Surcharges

S.
P11711f2P4i
111.710...1021119.13.E.11.' couRT.I.LAHQBE
From
The Addl. Registrar (Judi.),
Lahore High. Court, Lahore.
To,
7411
1.Chairman WAPIr
40041737289
.Chairman, NEPRA, Islamabad.
3.6ecretary Ministry of Water & Power Development

Authority, Islamabld.
Subject: WRIT PETITION No. 24076/2013, All Cases List Attached

herewith.
Flying Cement Co.Ltd. VERSUS Federation of Pakistan.etc.
Sir,
111 In continuation of this Court letter No.
dated X
I am directed to forward for information and immediate
compliance a copy of this Court's Order/Judgment dated 5.11.2014

passed in the above-noted case.
Yours Faithfully
Yl/ IL ft-)
Assistant Registrar (Writ)
For Addl. Registrar (Judi.)
Stereo. HCJDA 38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE
JTJDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013.

(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing 26.09.2014.
• Petitioners by: Mr. Azhar Siddique, Advocate.

(For attendance in connected matters see
Schedule-A).
Respondents by: Mr. Naseer Ahmad Bhutta, Additional Attorney

General for Pakistan with M/s Muhammad Zikria
Sheikh, Nasar Ahmad and Mian Tariq Ahmad,
Deputy AttOrney Generals.
Rana Shamshad Khan, Assistant Advocate
General.
Sheikh Muhammad Ali Advocate for Ministry of
Water and Power, Govt. of Pakistan, assisted by
Barrister Hans Ramzan, Ms. Mubashra Khalid,
Waseem Melunood Malik and Nusrat Hashmi
Advocates.
Mr. Umer Sharif Advocate for NEPRA.
Dr. Muharrynad Irtiza Awan, Mr. Tahir Zia Mahar
Advocates and Mr. Yasin Badar Legal Consultant
for LESCO.
Mr. Saad Rasool Advocate for WAPDA.
Mr. Orangzeb Mirza Advocate for GEPCO.
Mian Muhammad Javed Advocate for LESCO,
FESCO & GEPCO.
Ch. Fayyaz Ahmad Sanghaira Advocate for
FESCO, PEPCO & LESCO.
Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema Advocate for FESCO.
Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi Advocate for respondents
in W.P. Nos.18532/2011, 16607/2012,
11033/2011, 11034/2011, 24574/2013,
24363/2013, 24050/2013, 17886/2011,
27308/2013 & 23729/2013.
Mian Zafar Iqbal Kalanori Advocate for
respondqnt No.4 in W.P. No.9748/2013.
W P. No 24076 012013.
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc, v. Govt. of Pakistat, etc.)
e..
Shujaat Ali Kin J: - Through this consolidated judgment I
lr
intend to decide this p ,tition as well as those mentioned in Schedule-

,.
B & C having corm ionality of facts and law viz. in the petitions
mentioned in Schedule-B, the petitioners have challenged the
imposition of Surcnarge and its subsequent enhancement through
Notifications dated 15.03.2011 and 06.05.2011, respectively, whereas
in the petitions mentioned in Schedule-C (including the instant
• petition), the petitioners have assailed the levy of Equalization
Surcharge through Notification dated 05.08.2013.
2. Briefly, the facts, forming factual canvass of these petitions, are
that the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power,
through Notification dated 15.3.2011, levied Surcharge on electricity
at the rate of 2%. By virtue of Notification dated 6.5.2011 the rate of
said Surcharge was enhanced from 2% to 4%. Later on, the
• Government withdrew the Surcharge in question vide Notification
dated 16.05.2012. However, through Notification dated 05.08.2013,
the Government again levied Surcharge known as "Equalization
Surcharge" (EQ Surcharge) but subsequently withdrew the same
through Notification dated 11.10.2013. Aggrieved by the
imposition/enhancement of Surcharge in dispute, the petitioners have
preferred these petitions..
3. During the course of hearing, I have observed that despite
repeated calls, in certain cases neither the petitioners nor their learned
W.P. No.24076 012013,
(Flume Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistaned
counsel are in attendance. Further, there is no intimation regarding
petitioners or their cohnsel's engagement elsewhere despite the fact
that names of the learned counsel for the parties have duly been
reflected in the ca _Ise list. In this situation, such petitions can
conveniently be dismissed due to non-prosecution, however, as all the
petitions have not only been clubbed together but the question of law
involved therein is also common, the same are being decided through
this single judgment. Moreover, the decision of these matters cannot
be lingered on for an indefinite period awaiting representation of some
of the petitioners especially when learned counsel representing the
petitioners, in major number of cases, are present before this Court.
4. The contentions urged by Mian Mehmood Rashid, Advocate for
petitioners can be summed Op in the words that no levy/surcharge can
be imposed without determination by the National Electric Power
Regulatory Authority "NEPRA", as envisaged under section 31 (4) of
the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of
Electric Power Act 1997 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act 1997);
that those consumers, irrespective of their category, who are not
enjoying any kind of subsidy, are not liable to pay anything over and
above the tariff determined by NEPRA; that imposition of impugned
Surcharge amounts to compulsory extraction of money; that according
to Article 157 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the Constitution) only the

W.P. No.24076 012013. --4--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt, of Pakistan etc.)
Provincial Government can impose any surcharge etc. on the
distribution of the electricity within the Province; that section 31(5) of
the Act 1997 is ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution; that
the matter was not routed through the Council of Common Interest
(CCI), as postulated under Article 154 of the Constitution, thus the
imposition of impugned Surcharge is illegal; that certain other
provisions of the Act 1997 are algo ultra vires to the Constitution; that
tax/levy/surcharge cannot be imposed through a Finance Bill rather
the matter is to be approved by both the Houses whereas impugned
Surcharge has been imposed without such approval; that in National
Power Tariff and Subsidy Policy Guidelines, 2014, it has been
admitted that EQ Surcharge was imposed to recover the amount due
on account of line losses or subsidy given to the consumers of other
DISCOs, thus, the same is not justifiable; that discriminatory attitude
of the government was overwhelmingly manifested when EQ
Surcharge, imposed through Notification dated 05.08.2013, was
confined to industrial consumers only and that to fill up the gap
between the cost of electricity and the subsidy/line losses of
inefficient Distribution Companies (DISCOs), the consumers of the
DISCOs, which are performing their affairs in an efficient manner,
have been over-burdened. In addition to his oral submissions, learned
counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Human Rights Case
No.14392 of 2013 (2014 SCMR 220), Engineer Zafar Iqbal Jhagra v.
Federation of Pakistan and others (2013 PTD 1491), Alleged

W.P. No.24076 Of 2013.
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Corruption in Rental Power Plants etc. (2012 SCMR 773), Pearl
Continental Hotel and another v. Govt. of N.W.F.P. and others (2010
PTD 2018), Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others v. M/s
Lucky Cement and another (2007 SCMR 1367), •Wattan Party
through President v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2006 SC
697), Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise and Sales
Tax and others (2005 PTD 480), The Province of Punjab and another
• v. National Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation and another
(2000 SCMR 567), Collector of Customs and others v. Sheikh
Spinning Mills (1999 SCMR 1402), Gatron (Industries) Limited v.
Govt. of Pakistan and others (1999 SCMR 1072), Aftab Shahban
Mirani v. President of Pakistan and others (1998 SCMR 1863), M/s
Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD
1997 SC 582), Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and
others (PLJ 1997 SC 739), Govt. of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon
and 16 others (PLD 1993 SC 341), Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v.

411
President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473), Pakistan
through Secretary Cabinet Division and others v. Nawabzada
Muhammad Umar Khan and others (1992 SCMR 2450), Pakistan
Industrial Development Corporation v. Pakistan through Secretary
Ministry of Finance (1992 SCMR 891), Haji Abdullah Khan and
others v. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others (PLD 1965 SC 690),
Abdul Latif v. Govt. of West Pakistan and others (PLD 1962 SC
384), M/s Shahbaz Garments (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Pakistan

W.P. No.24076 Of 20l 3,
through Secretary Ministry of Finance and others (PLD 2013 Sindh
449), M/s Azgard Nine Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary and others
(PLD 2013 LHR 282), Sved Feroze Shah Ghillani and others v.
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 LHR 659), Exide
Pakistan Ltd. Cantonment Board Clifton and another (2012 CLC
1124), Sanofi Aventis Pakistan Ltd. and others v. Province of Sindh
and 2 others (PLD 2009 Karachi 69), ICC Textiles Ltd. and 31 others
v. WAPDA and 15 others (2009 CLC 1343), Dawood Hercules v.
Collector of Sales Tax (2007 PTD 1161), Rashid ur Rehman v. Mian
Iqbal Hassain (PLD 2005 LHR 416), Standard Chartered Bank v.
Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (PLD 2001 Karachi 344),
National Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd. and another
v. Province of Puniab/Government of Punjab through Secretary,
Cooperative Department and another (PLD 1992 Lahore 462),
Naseem Mehmood v. Principal King Edward Medical College and
others [PLD 1965 (W.P.) 272], Abdul Majid and another v. Province
of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1960 Dacca 502), I.T.As
Nos.3934/LB/2002 and other allied matters [2007 PTD (Trib) 181]
and I.T.As Nos.5138/LB/2004 and another allied matter [2007 PTD
(Trib) 139].
5. On the constitutional plane, the legal prepositions and basic
objections, put forwarded by Mr. Azhar Siddique, Advocate for
petitioners in some of the petitions, are to the effect that as the source
MAIL
W. P, No.24076 012013
(Fivinz Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Paldstan etc.)
for imposition of impugned surcharge is missing the same cannot be
given legal blanket and that as the impugned Notifications were not
issued under section 31(5) of the Act 1997, the same cannot be
allowed to hold the field even for a moment.
6. While controverting the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioners, Sheikh iVluhammad Ali, Advocate, representing
Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan, states that as
impugned notifications have already been withdrawn by the
government, these petitions, as a matter of fact, have become
infructuous; that NEPRA is only regulatory authority for
determination of rates, charges and tariffs but it has nothing to do with
the surcharge which exclusively falls within the domain of the
government in terms of section 31(5) of the Act 1997; that NEPRA
being only regulatory authority cannot pre-empt the powers of the
government to levy Surcharge; that under the new scheme, the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity is being
governed through distinct licensees, thus, the government, with a view
to raise funds for providing subsidy to the consumers has to impose
Surcharge at certain points of time; that as the surcharge cannot be
equated with charge, rate and tariff, it has nothing to do with NEPRA;
that provisions of Article 157(3) of the Constitution are only enabling
and not mandatory in nature; that the Provincial Government can levy
a surcharge only when it constructs dams, grid stations etc. or

W.P. No.24076 012013.
purchases electricity in bulk from the Federation for its onward
distribution to the consumers in the Province; that wrong mentioning
of a provision of law or non-mentioning thereof does not make any
difference as the same can be cured while following the principle of
reading down; that the periodical imposition of EQ Surcharge is proof
positive of the fact that the government resorted to such exercise just
to cope with financial pandemonium for the time being; that even
• today the government is providing subsidy to the electricity
consumers approximately at the rate of Rs.3/4 per unit; that in the
instant case, the Golden Principle of interpretation is to be followed to
make up any procedural deficiency on the part of government; that as
the government is providing subsidy considering it as obligation, it
reserves the right to impose Surcharge to raise funds in the hour of
necessity and that after 18th Amendment subject of electricity is also
included at item No.4 in the Federal List, thus, the Surcharge in
question was rightly imposed by the Federal Government.
7. The legal formulations put forwarded by the learned Additional
Attorney General, assisted by the learned Deputy Attorney Generals,
are to the effect that though the power regarding determination of
tariff vests with NEPRA but to notify the same is prerogative of the
Federal Government as postulated under section 31(4) of the Act
1997; that Article 157(2)(b) of the Constitution does not debar the
Federation to levy any surcharge on electricity through DISCOs; that

W,P. No.24076 Of 20. H.
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd, Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc
the word used under Article 157(2) of the Constitution is "may"
therefore, if the Provincial Government does not impose any
surcharge on electricity, the Federal Government cannot be debarred
to do so; that the imposition of surcharge does not fall within the
subjects which are to be referred to CCI rather the same can be
imposed by the government through Finance Act and that imposition
of EQ Surcharge has already been declared legal by a learned
Division Bench of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta through its
judgment, dated 08.07.2014, rendered in Constitutional Petition
No.904/2011 and other allied matters. To substantiate his contentions,
learned Additional Attorney General has relied upon the cases
reported as Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and
others (1997 SCMR 641), Shamshad Bibi v. District Judge, Multan
and 2 others (2012 YLR 277) and Shaikh Nadeem Younas, Chief
Executive, Noble Textile Mills Pattoki District Kasur v. WAPDA and
4 others (1996 CLC 1090).
8. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan Advocate, appearing on behalf of
LESCO, pleads that if for the sake of arguments it is admitted that
there is some lacuna in the issuance of the notifications, in question,
the same can be filled up 'by this Court while following the dictum
laid down in the cases reported as Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others
v. Federation of Pakistan (2012 SCMR 455), Commissioner of
Income Tax v. M/s Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 PTD 1392),
Akt
W.P. No.24076 012013 --10--
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc )
M/s Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan
(PLD 1997 SC 582) and Indus Jute Mills Ltd. v. Federation of
Pakistan and 3 others (2009 PTD 1473).
9. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Advocate for FESCO, in
furtherance of the arguments put forwarded by learned counsel for
LESCO states that second part of impugned notifications renders it
unambiguously clear that the same was issued by the government
while exercising powers as contemplated under section 31(5) of the
Act 1997, thus, the impugned Notifications were issued validly; that
as language of the notification is explicit, the objection raised by
learned counsel for the petitioners has no worth especially when the
same is put in juxtaposition to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case M/s Jame's Construction Co.
(Pvt.) Ltd. through Executive Director v. Province of Punjab and 3
others (PLD 2002 SC 310).
10. Mr. Aurangzeb Mirza Advocate, representing GEPCO, states
that after admission on the part of counsel for the petitioners that the
Federal government enjoys power to levy surcharge in view of section
31(5) of the Act 1997, there is nothing to be left for adjudication by
this Court rather the petitions deserve outright dismissal and that as
the preposition, under discussion, has already been set at rest by a
learned Division Bench of High Court of Balochistan, the entire
exercise is nothing but wastage of precious time of this court.

470k
W.P. No.24076 012013,
invinz Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
11. Learned counsel for theipetitioners, while exercising their right
of rebuttal, submit that Federal Government cannot impose any
surcharge while pressing into service the question of subsidy being
given to the consumers of other DISCOs; that the subsidy being
provided to the consumers cannot be withdrawn by the Government in
view of the verdict of the apex Court of the country in Human Rights
Case No.14392 of 2013 (supra); that as the case-law being relied upon
by the respondents side relates to tax matters, the same is of no help to
the respondents; that tax and surcharge being polls apart from each
other cannot be intermingled; that the consumers/petitioners before
this Court cannot be burdened with any extra surcharge/levy just to
facilitate or accommodate the consumers of inefficient DISCOs in
other provinces as lapse on the part of one entity cannot be made
ground for punishment to another; that the Federal Government can
manage cost of electricity by using less expensive sources for its
production in addition to controlling electricity theft etc; that
argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents that EQ Surcharge is not payable on consumption of
electricity rather it is on sale thereof is not tenable as on the face of it
the same is payable on consumption and not on sale; that if for the
sake of arguments it is admitted that EQ Surcharge was imposed by
the government, while exercising powers under section 31(5) of the
Act 1997, the same can be set at naught by following the principle of
"reading down"; that the judgment passed by the High Court of

40,
W.P. No.24076 0(2013. --12--
Balochistan is not binding on this Court; that, as a matter of fact, the
question regarding EQ Surchgrge has not been dealt with by High
Court of Balochistan independently rather the same was taken up
alongwith preposition qua imposition of Fuel Price Adjustment; that
the judgment of High Court of Balochistan is also distinguishable on
the ground that QESCO cannot be equated with distribution
companies, whose consumers have instituted these petitions; that the
judgment passed by the High Court of Balochistan cannot be
considered on all fours as the principle of "reading down" has not
been discussed in the said judgment; that Karachi Electricity Supply
Company (KESC now K-Electric) has not been burdened with such
surcharge which speaks volumes about the discriminatory attitude of
Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power towards
different DISCOs. To conclude his arguments, Mr. Azhar Siddique,
Advocate has pleaded that had the notification been issued under
section 31(5) of the Act 1997, the petitioners would have definitely
challenged the same while calling in question the vires of said section.
12. At this juncture, learned Additional Attorney General, assisted
by Sheikh Muhammad Ali, Advocate, in furtherance of his arguments
enumerated above, states that as the K-Electric has multiple licenses
viz. in respect of "Generation", "Transmission" and "Distribution",
the same cannot be quoted as precedent in respect of tariff/surcharge
being levied against other Generation, Transmission and Distribution

WI', No.24076 012013.
(Flvinr Cement Co. Ltd. Etc, v, Govt. of Pakistan etc,)
--13--
Companies; that since the promulgation of the Act 1997 all the
notifications by the government are being issued under section 31(4)
of the Act 1997, thus the inipugned notifications cannot be set at
naught only for the reason that the same were issued while mentioning
wrong provision of law; that as uniform policy is being followed by
the government in respect of tariffs for different DISCOs except K-
Electric for the reasons narrated above, the petitioners have no cheeks
to press into service the point of discrimination; that in order to meet
with raising demand of electricity, same is being produced on
commercial basis and the consumers are bound to face the brunt of
fluctuation in cost thereof, in particular the fuel being used for the said
purpose; that the intent of the government is not to put additional
burden on the consumers rather is to manage funds to provide subsidy
to the consumers who are not able to bear the raising price of the
electricity.
13. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the parties
and have also scanned the relevant documents in addition to going
through the provisions of law as well as the case-law cited at the bar.
14. Firstly, taking up the plea of the respondents that after
withdrawal of impugned notifications, these petitions have become
infructuous, I do not find myself in agreement on the said point for the
reason that not only the imposition of Surcharge has been challenged
W.P. No.24076 0(2013 --14--
[F(ying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
in these petitions but the petitioners have also prayed for refund of the
amount already deducted on th.at account.
15. It is of common knowledge that in this era, the electricity has
assumed crucial role for survival of a nation and to compete with
others in the comity of nations. The energy, as such, has become one
of the basic components of everyday life. With the change in seasonal
cycle and raising demand, the production of the electricity on priority
basis through alternate sources has become one of the foremost
challenges for the persons at the helm of the affairs of a State. With a
view to fulfill the raising demand of electricity the government is
compelled to introduce lucrative packages for private power
generation entities just to expand the sources for production of
electricity. During the said process, sometimes the private power
generation companies, with a view to extract maximum profit and
blackmail the consumer on the one hand and the government on the
other, create a monopoly. Due to monopolistic attitude of the power
generation units the consumers have to bear extra burden. This Court,
being custodian of the fundamental rights, can take judicial notice in
order to have the continuous supply of energy for the present and
future domestic and commercial needs in addition to maintaining the
present sources of energy alongwith expansion of new sources of
energy. Therefore, while imposing the levies and fixation of rates by
the Government, in particular NEPRA, a balance has to be struck

4att
W.P. No.24076 012013.
—15--
between the financial status of citizens of the country and the extent of
national requirement for eneigy on the one hand and available
resources for electricity on the other. Thus, a very heavy duty casts
upon the public functionaries, the executive as well as judiciary to see
that balance is struck in such a manner that the system flourishes and
continue progressing on the one hand and the interest of
customers/citizens is ensured on the other.
16. Now reverting to the merits of the case, out of divergent
contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties, inter alia
following legal prepositions have emerged out for determination by
this court: -
(i) Whether word "Surcharge" carries the same meaning as

those of "Tariff", "Rate" or "Charge" or it has
independent character?
(ii) Whether Surcharge is a tax and further as to whether

Federal Government is empowered to impose Surcharge
in electricity bills or not?
(iii) Whether the Government is bound to refer the matter to

NEPRA prior to impbsition of Surcharge?
(iv) Whether a notification issued under section 31(4) of the

Act 1997 can be considered as under section 31(5) of the
said Act?
(v) Whether the matter regarding levy of Surcharge was to

be routed through the Council of Common Interests
(CCI)?
(vi) Whether under Article 157 of the Constitution the

provincial government has the exclusive power to levy
any tax/surcharge on distribution of electricity in the
province or the Federal Government has simultaneous
powers to do so?
1"
W.P. No.24076 01 2013 --16--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v, Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
(vii) Whether the questioned levies are excessive and

unreasonable and, hence, are liable to be struck down, in
exercise of poiver of judicial review by this Court?
(vii) Whether sub section 5 of section 31 of the Act 1997 can

be struck down While following the principle of "reading
down"?
(viii) Whether non-impbsition of Surcharge, under discussion,

against Karachi Electricity Company (KESE now K-
Electric) or against a particular category of consumers
can be considered as discrimination on the part of the
government?
17. Firstly, taking up the question as to whether the word
"Surcharge" can be equated with the terms known as "Tariff' "Rate"
and "Charge", it is imperative to know their respective meanings.
According to K. J. Aiyar Judicial Dictionary, 166 Edition 2014, the
word "tariff' means—
"A table alphabetically arranged and containing duties,

bounties, etc. charged upon merchandise exported and
imported, as settled by authority or authorities that hold
commerce together. i
It is a list of duties charged on specified articles; any list of
charges.
Includes within its ambit not only the fixation of rates but also
the rules and regulations relating to it."
In Wharton's Law Lexicon, 14th Edition, the word "Tariff' has
been defined as—
"Tariff [Span.] a cartel of commerce, a book of rates, a table

or catalogue, drawn up usually in alphabetical order,
containing the names of several kinds of merchandise, with the
duties or customs to be paid for the same, as settled by
authority or agreed on between the several States that hold
commerce together>10,
"..
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013. --17--
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd, Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
The word "Tariff' in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, Eighth
Edition has been defined as—
"A schedule or system of duties imposed by a government on

imported or exportd goods. In the United States, tariffs are
imposed on imported goods only.
A duty imposed on imported or exported goods under such a
system. "
According to ADVANCED LAW LEXICON by P Ramanatha
Aiyar's 4th Edition Volume 1 & 4 word "Tariff' means—
"Duties or customs to be paid on imports or exports, such

duties collectively; law imposing these duties.
`Tariff' means a rate of tariff leviable upon the consumption of
electricity in the State supplied by the licensee and as fixed by
the Tamil Nadu electricity Regulatory Commission.'
Determination, ascertainment, a table of rates of export and
import duties, in which sense the word has been adopted in
English and other European languages.
Levied either on ad valorem basis or on a specific basis,
customs duty on merchandise imports.
Custom, duties, toll, or tribute, payable upon merchandise
exported and imported, are so called, (Tomlin)."
Similarly word "tariff' has been defined in The Chambers
Dictionary 12th Edition as under:-
"a list or set of customs duties; a customs duty levied on

particular goods (eg at a hotel); (a list of) standard rates
charged for a service, eg electricity or insurance; a menu; a
scale of penalties established by law for sentencing those
convicted of certain crimes,"
Likewise, the word "tariff' in Halsbury's Laws of India, Volume
42, has been explained as under: -
"where the exigibility to duty cannot be gathered from positive

terms under a particular entry, it must be deduced from a
proper construction of the tariff entry."
/A11-
W.. P. No 29076 Of 2013. --18--
The Major Law Lexicon, Volume VI, defines "tariff' in the
following manner: -
"Duties or customs to be paid on imports or exports, such

duties collectively; law imposing these duties."
Insofar as meaning of the word "RATE" is concerned, the same has
been defined in K J Aiyar Judicial Dictionary, 16th Edition 2014 as
under: -
"The history of the use of the word rate' for purposes of local
taxation in English law clearly shows that the word 'rate' was
used with respect to a tax which was levied on the net annual
value or rateable value of lands and buildings and not on their
capital value. But according to AK Sarkar .1, expressing
minority view 'rate', is an expression used to indicate an impost
levied by the local authority to raise funds for its expenses.
Such an impost would be rate irrespective of the basis on which
it is levied."
According to Wharton's Law Lexicon, 146 Edition, the word
"Rate" means—
"A contribution levied by some public body for a public

purpose, as a poor rate, a highway rate, a sewers rate, upon, as
a general rule, the occupiers of property within a parish or
other area.
The term 'rate' is also used to mean a charge by a water, gas,
railway, or other public undertaking for services rendered."
In BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, Ninth Edition, the word
"Rate" has been defined as under:
1. Proportional or relative' value; the proportion by which

quantity or value is adjusted <rate of inflation>.
2. An amount paid or charged for a good or service <the rate for
a business-class fare is $550>.
40.
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013,
(Flvinz Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v, Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
--19--
According to ENCYCLOPAEDIC LAW DICTIONARY, (Legal &
Commercial), By Dr. A. R. Biswas, the word "Rate" means—
"Rates are the principal means by which money to defray local

Government expenses is raised by direct levy on occupiers, or
in certain cases owners of property within the area of the
authority making the rate. Halsbury's laws of England, 3rd
Edn., Vol. 32, p.3. •
'Rate' includes any fare, charge or other payment for the
carriage of any passenger, animal or goods."
The definition of word "Rate" has been given by The Major Law
Lexicon, By P Ramanatha 4iyar's, 4th Edition, in the following
manner: -
"Rate" defined. [N.B. this word is also used in combination

with other words (as) occupier's rate; Owner's rate; Rural
policy-rate.]
"Rate" includes any fare, charge or other payment for the
carriage of any passenger, animal or goods as Railway rate.
"Rate" includes any toll, rent, rate, fee or charge leviable
under this Act.
"Rate" includes any fare, charge, or other payment for the
carriage of passengers, animals or goods."
Now reverting to word "Charge" the same has been defined in
Wharton's Law Lexicon, 14 th Edition as under:-
"Charge: A burden, duty, or trust; when attached to property."
According to ADVANCER LAW LEXICON by P Ramanatha
Aiyar's, 4th Edition, Volume 1 & 4, the word "Charge" means—
"Obligation to meet a d6bt, a debit to an account, or the

process of debiting. It is also a legal interest in land agreed by
a borrower to secure a lone that gives the charge (often a bank
or building society) a priority right to repayment when the land
is sold A creditor's interest in company property is also called
charge and must be registered with the Registrar of Companies.
Includes all taxes.
W.P. No.24076 0(2013.
--20--
The term 'charges' in relation of fixation of price must be read

ejusdem generis taking colour from the succeeding terms–rates,
duties and taxes, under Cl. 2(d)."
As far as the word "Surcharge" is concerned the same has been
defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, in the following
mariner:-
"Surcharge, 1. n. An additional tax, charge, or cost, usu. One

that is excessive.2. An additional load or burden. 3. A second or
further mortgage. 4. The omission of a proper credit on an
account. 5. The amount that a court may charge a fiduciary that
has breached its duty. 6. An overprint on a stamp, esp. one that
changes its face valup. 7. The overstocking of an area with
animals."
In Aiyer's Judicial Dictionary, 10th Edition, the word "Surcharge"
has been defined in the following way:
"Surcharge: "An overcharge of what is just and right".
According to Ballantine's Law Dictionary, 3rd-Edition, the word
"Surcharge" means—
"An additional amount added to the usual charge, an

exaction."
In Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, the word "Surcharge" has
been interpreted as under: -
"An over-charge; an exaction imposed or encumbrance beyond

what is just or right, or beyond one's authority or power."
After comparison of afore-quoted definitions one thing is clear that
word "Surcharge" is entirely different from other words and
accumulatively it means something chargeable over and above the
original levy in whatever shape it may be.40itt

W. P. No.24076 012013. --21--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd, Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
18. Now coming to the point as to whether the Surcharge is a tax, I
am of the view that a bare reading of section 31(5) of the Act 1997
renders it indubitably clear that neither it is an independent levy nor a
tax rather is part of tariff to be determined by the NEPRA. When the
Legislator has declared it as part of tariff, the same cannot be
considered as an independent tax. The said preposition also came
under discussion before the apex court of the country in the matter of
Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others (supra) wherein it has been dealt
with in the following words:-
"40. After having gond through the record, we are of

the view that surcharge and additional surcharge are in
substance part of electricity tariff and are not taxes.
The use of the above words or use of word "levy" will not
change the nature of the charge, the same is to be
ascertained on the basis of the facts as a whole and
attending circumstances." (emphasis provided)
As far as question regarding power of the Government to
impose any surcharge is concerned, it is observed that for
determination of said question perusal of section 31 of the Act 1997 is
very conducive, which for ready reference is reproduced herein
below: -
"31. Tariff (1) — As soon as may be, but not later than six
months from the commencement of this Act, the Authority shall
determine and prescribe procedures and standards for
determination, modification or revision of rates charges and
terms and conditions for generation of electric power,
transmission, inter-connection, distribution services and power
sales to consumers by licensees and until such procedures and
standards are prescribed, the Authority shall determine, modify
or revise such rates, charges and terms and conditions in
accordance with the ' directions issued by the Federal
Government.
Alt
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013, --23--
(Flvtne Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v, Govt. of Pakistan etc..
(5) Each distribution company shall pay to the Federal

Government such surcharge as the Federal Government,
from time to time, notify in respect of each unit of electric
power sold to the consumers and any amount paid under this
sub-section shall be considered as a cost incurred by the
distribution company to be included in the tariff determined
by the Authority. "(emphasis provided)
According to afore-quoted provision of law, in particular section 31(5)
of the Act 1997, the Government enjoys exclusive power to impose
surcharge on electricity against a distribution company. There is no
cavil with the preposition that Government is bound to notify tariff as
determined by the NEPRA in respect of 'Tariff, 'Charge' or 'Rate'
but regarding imposition of surcharge in terms of section 31(5) of the
Act 1997, the Government enjoys the exclusive powers. Further, the
question regarding imposition of surcharge and additional surcharge
in electricity bill came under discussion before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of Pakistan in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others
(Supra) wherein the law has been laid to the following effect:-
"39. We may now take up the question as to the legality

of the surcharge and additional surcharge. It was
vehemently urged by Messrs Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and
Khalid Anwar that the above two levies are in fact taxes
and not part of tariff and, therefore, WAPDA has no
power under the Act to impose the same; whereas Mr.
Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim's submission was that a perusal
of the documents on record indicates that in substance
and in fact they are part of electricity tariff and they are
not taxes. If we were to hold that the above two levies are
taxes the same would be ultra vices the power of
WAPDA. However, if we were to agree with Mr
Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim's above submission, then the
next question which would require consideration would
be, whether the same are violative of any provisions of
the Act or any law or principle of
/lip
W.. P, No.24076 Of 2013 --24--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt of Pakistan etc.).
12. In the result we are unable to sustain the view of the

High Court. The question that was referred must be
answered in the affirmative and in favour of the
Revenue. In view of the nature of the points involved the
parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court,
certificate is dismissed. "(emphasis provided)
If we see the nature of Surcharge, subject matter of these
petitions, it is conspicuously clear that the same is nothing else merely
because of a different nomenclature as shown in the break-up of
electricity bills separately just for keeping different heads of account
of various imposts and to demonstrate transparency of demand to the
consumers but appendage of the tariff determined by the NEPRA. As
a net conclusion of the 'discussion made in this paragraph, the
Surcharge, under discussion, cannot be considered as independent tax
or levy and government enjoys power to impose the same.
19. The hub of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners,
in particular Mian Mehmood Rashid, Advocate is that impugned
surcharge has been imposed without the intervention of NEPRA. In
this regard, I am of the humble view that the Act 1997 was
promulgated on 06.12.1997 to regulate the affairs of Generation,
Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power and other allied
matters and the NEPRA has been established under section 3 thereof.
/17.0
--25--
W. P. No.24076 01'2013,
fFIvinz Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
According to section 7 of the Act 1997 the NEPRA has been vested
with the following powers and functions:-
7. Powers and functions of the Authority.--(1) The Authority

shall be exclusively responsible for regulating the provision of
electric power services.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the

foregoing power, only the Authority, but subject to the
provisions of subsection (4), shall--
(a) grant licenses for generation, transmission and
distribution of electric power;
(b) prescribe procedures and standards for investment
programmes by generation, transmission and distribution
companies;
(c) prescribe and enforce performance standards for
generation, transmission and distribution companies;
(d) establish a, uniform system of accounts by generation,
transmission and distribution companies;
(e) prescribe fees including fees for grant of licences and
renewal thereof
(9 prescribe fines for contravention of the provisions of
this Act;
(g) review its orders, decisions or determinations;
(h) settle disputestetween the licensees;
(i) issue guidelines and standards operating procedures;
and
(j) perform any other function which is incidental or
consequential to any of the aforesaid functions.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) and

without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by
subsection (1) the Authority shall--
(a) determine tariff, rates, charges and other terms and
conditions for supply of electric power services by the
generation, transmission and distribution companies and
recommend to the Federal Government for notification;
(b) review organizational affairs of generation,
transmission and distribution companies to avoid any
adverse effect on the operation of electric power services
and for continuous and efficient supply of such services;
(c) encourage uniform industry standards and code of
conduct for generation, transmission and distribution
companies;
(d) tender advice to public sector project;
rito
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013,
--26--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc,)
(e) submit reports to the Federal Government in respect

of activities of generation, transmission and distribution
companies; and
(fi perform any other function which is incidental or
consequential to any of the aforesaid functions.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the

Government of a Province may construct power houses and
grid stations and lay transmission lines for use within the
Province and determine the tariff for distribution of electricity
within the Province.
(5) Before approving the tari fffor the supply of electric power
by generation companies using hydro-electric plant, the
Authority shall consider the recommendations of the
Government of the Province in which such generation facility is
located.
(6) In performing its functions under this Act, the Authority

shall, as far as practicable, protect the interests of consumers
and companies providing electric power services in accordance
with guidelines, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act,
laid down by the Federal Government.
A glance over the afore-quoted provision, in particular section 7(3)(a),
makes it crystal clear that thqugh NEPRA has been given multiple
tasks in connection with the Generation, Transmission and
Distribution of electricity, including determination of tariff, rates,
charges and other terms and conditions for supply of electric power
services by Generation, Transmission and Distribution Companies but
nowhere it has been given any authority to determine the quantum of
Surcharge. It is well entrenched by now that while interpreting any
provision of law, the ordinary meaning of a word used therein should
be followed until and unless the context provides otherwise. Insofar as
question, under discussion, is concerned, suffice it to observe that
when the legislator has knowingly confined the jurisdiction of

W.P. No.24076 01'2013. --27--
iF(vinv Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
NEPRA to determine "Rate", "Tariff" and "Charge" excluding
"Surcharge" this Court, in no way, can hold that NEPRA has the
authority to determine the same, while introducing an entirely different
meaning as against the explicit terminology of section 31 of the Act
1997 as the same would amount to deviate from well-recognized
principles of Interpretation of a Statute. However, if the government
decides to refer the matter to NEPRA prior to imposition of Surcharge
as has been decided under the National Power Tariff & Subsidy
Policy Guidelines, 2014, then the situation would be entirely different.
The discussion in the fore-going lines leads to indubitable conclusion
that it is optional for the Government either to refer the matter to
NEPRA prior to imposition of Surcharge or impose the same directly
while exercising powers as contemplated under section 31(5) of the
Act 1997.
Even otherwise, if the intention of the legislator was to put a
condition of prior approval by the Government from NEPRA while
imposing any Surcharge there was no need to mention under section
31(5) of the Act 1997 that the Surcharge so imposed shall be
considered as cost incurred by the DISCO to be included in the tariff
determined by NEPRA. When the intent of the legislator is explicit
that imposition of Surcharge in the wake of Section 31(5) of the Act,
1997, shall be considered as cost of electricity incurred by the
Distribution Company thus the same cannot be intermingled with the

W.P. No.24076 Of 2013.
--28--
tariff to be determined by NEPRA under section 31(4) of the Act
1997.
20. The next ticklish question is as to whether a Notification issued
by the Government under section 31(4) of the Act 1997 can be
considered as having been issued under section 31(5) of the said Act.
To resolve the controversy, a cursory glance over the notifications
through which the impugned surcharge was imposed twice firstly in
the year 2011 and secondly in the year 2013, is of much importance,
which for purposes of reference are being reproduced herein below: -
"Government of Pakistan
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad the 15th March, 2011.
NOTIFICATION
S.R.0.235(I)/2011. In pursuance of sub-section (4)

of section 31 of the Regulation of Generation,
Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act,
1997 (XL of 1997), and in supersession of its Notification
No.S.R.O. No.1127(I)/2p09, dated the 215t December,
2009, the Federal Government is pleased to notify the
National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's
determination as per Schedule-I to this notification for
the quarter July-September 2010 with effect from l g
October 2010 and applicable tariff as per Schedule-II to
this notification. In respect of the FESCO and it is
notified that FESCO shall receive payments from its
consumers at the rates as per Schedule-II. The difference
between the relevant rates determined by NEPRA as per
Schedule-I and the rates charged from the consumers as
per Schedule-II shall be paid to FESCO by the Federal
Government.
Provided that there shall be levied a surcharge
@2% on the consumption of electricity by every category
of electricity consumer mentioned in Schedule-II except
consumption upto 300 units "Residential-Al ".401,
--29--
W.P. No.24076 0(2013.
(nvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Provided further that consumer of domestic

category "Residential-Al " will be billed and given
benefit of all previous slabs of the tariff as per existing
procedure.
Provided also that there shall be levied till the 313`
December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of
Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity by every
category of electricity consumer mentioned in Schedule-
II except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category
"Residential-Al " and s'uch additional charges: -
(i) Shall not form a part while calculating the
difference between the relevant rates of
Schedule-1 and Schedule-II and
(ii) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the
"Neelum Jhelum Hydro Power Development
Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive
use of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power
Project.
The Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism is placed at
Annex-I, FESCO Power Purchase Price at Annex-II and
the Terms and Conditions at Annex-III to this
notification."
"Government of Pakistan
Ministry of Water and Power
Islamabad the 5th August, 2013.
NOTIFICATION
S.R.O. 700(I)/2013. In pursuance of sub-section

(4) of section 31 of the Regulation of Generation,
Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act,
1997 (XL of 1997), and in supersession of its Notification
No.S.R.O. No.235(I)/2011, dated the 15th March 2011,
the Federal Government is pleased to notify the National
Electric Power Regulatory Authority's determination as
per Schedule-I to this notification with effect from the 1St
July, 2012 and applicable tariff as per Schedule-II to this
notification with immediate effect, in respect of the
FESCO and it is notified that FESCO shall receive
payments from its consumers at the rates as per
Schedule-IL The difference between the relevant rates
determined by NEPRA as per Schedule-I and the rates
charged from the consumers as per Schedule-II shall be
paid to FESCO by the Federal Government.
W. P. No.24076 0(2013.
--3 0--
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Provided that consumer of domestic category

"Residential-Al " will be billed and given benefit of all
previous slabs of the tariff as per existing procedure.
Provided that there shall be levied till the 31st
December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of
1.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity by every
category of electricity consumer mentioned in Schedule-
II except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category
"Residential A-1" and such additional charges :
Shall not form a part while calculating the

(a)
difference .between the relevant rates of
Schedule-1 and Schedule-II and
(b) Shall be deposited in a Fund called the
"Neelum Jhelum Hydro Power Development
Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account of
the Neelum-Jhelum Company for exclusive
use of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power
Project.
2. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I,
Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, FESCO
Power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and
Conditions at Annex-IV to this notification."
A perusal of first proviso to Notification dated 15.03.2011 shows that
Government proceeded to impose Surcharge at the rate of 2% against
all types of electricity Consumers excluding those having tariff
"Residential Al". Similarly, through Notification, dated 05.08.2013,
the Government while issuing Tariffs for different categories of
consumers in the Schedule wider the heading of "Industrial Supply
Tariffs" imposed Surcharge by the name of "EQ Surcharge" at the
rate of Rs.0.81 per KWH. In both the Notifications the word is
"Surcharge" and in view of the discussion made in the foregoing
paragraphs, I have no doubt in my mind to hold that the same was
imposed by the Government while exercising powers under Section
31(5) of the Act 1997 as the nomenclature of surcharge has least

/lick
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013
--31--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Eta v. Govt. of Pakistan etc,)
relevancy rather the purposes and the background of its imposition are
pivotal. In this regard, I seek guidance from the judgment of the
august Supreme Court in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills and 814
others (supra) wherein the apex court of the country, while
determining the validity of a surcharge on the basis of nomenclature,
has inter alia held as follows:-
"*****lf the tariff rates are fixed within the parameters

laid down by above subsection (2) of section 25 of the
Act, whether the same are recovered under the
nomenclature of electricity charges or surcharge or
additional surcharge, it does not matter. No exception
can be taken to the same."
As far as the plea of the petitioners that as the Notifications in
question having not been specifically issued under section 31(5) of the
Act 1997 cannot be read under the said provision, is concerned, I am
of the humble view that omission to mention the relevant provision of
law or wrong mentioning thereof does not make any difference
especially when the context and the language of a document vividly
encompasses the purposes and the legal backing thereof In this
regard, I stand guided by the judgment of the apex Court of the
country reported as Zaman Cement Company (Pvt) Ltd. v. Central
Board of Revenue and others (2002 SCMR 312) wherein it has inter-
alia been observed as under: -
"8. There is no denying the fact that while interpreting a

notification "the purpose or purposes for which a notification
is issued would be relevant in determining the vires of a
notification. One of the practical and effective ways of
proliferating the purpose is to see how far the suggested
meaning destroys and defeats Or promotes the ultimate purpose.
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013 --32--
In this research the Court is not confined to the literal

meaning of the words used in the notification but it has to
adopt a rational attitude by attempting to align its vision to
that of the draftsman while drafting the notification in
question. "(emphasis provided).
Further, a learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court, in the case of
Qurban v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh (2000 CLC
1083), while clinching the issue, under discussion, has observed as
under: -
"*****But the fact remains that misquoting of provision of

law would not render...particular proceedings incompetent,
provided the Jurisdiction invoked is available under the
law....(emphasis provided)
It is important to mention over here that when the government
has been empowered to levy surcharge in terms of section 31(5) of the
Act 1997, neither any embargo can be put against it to impose the
same while notifying the tariff determined by NEPRA nor the said
notification can be declared illegal merely for the reason that it does
not specifically find mention of section 31(5) of the Act 1997. At the
cost of repetition it is made clear that for the first time the surcharge
was introduced in the year 2011 in the shape of a proviso to the
Notification issued under section 31(4) of the Act 1997 and
subsequently EQ Surcharge was included in the Schedule of tariff
determined for Industrial consumers through Notification dated
05.08.2013, thus, issuance of independent notification for imposition
of said Surcharge was not necessary.

thou.
W.P. No.24076 012013.
--33--
(Flvims Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
21. As far as the plea of the petitioners that as the impugned EQ
Surcharge was imposed without approval by the National Assembly
and Senate the same is not justified, is concerned, suffice it to observe
that Section 31(5) of the Act 1997 was incorporated in the Act 1997
through Finance Act 2008. Article 73 of the Constitution deals with
the procedure regarding Money Bills which for ready reference is
reproduced herein below: -
"73. Procedure with respect to Money Bills.-(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 70 or
Article 71, a Money Bill shall originate in the National
Assembly:
Provided that simultaneously when a Money Bill,

including the Finance Bill containing the Annual
Budget Statement, is presented in the National
Assembly, a copy thereof shall be transmitted to
the Senate which may, within fourteen days, make
recommendations thereon to the National
Assembly.
(1A) The National Assembly shall, consider the

recommendations of the Senate and after the bill
has been passed by the Assembly with or without
incorporating the recommendations of the Senate,
it shall be presented to the President for assent.
(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill or

amendment shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it
contains provisions dealing with all or any of the
following matters, .namely :----
(a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration

or regulation of any tax;
(b) the borrowing of money, or the giving of any

guarantee, by the Federal Government, or the
amendment of 'the law relating to the financial
obligations of that Government;
.4701,
W.P. No.24076 01 2013. --34--
(c) the custody of the Federal Consolidated Fund,

the payment of moneys into, or the issue of moneys
from, that Fund;
(d) the imposition of a charge upon the Federal

Consolidated Fund, or the abolition- or alteration
of any such charge;
(e) the receipt of moneys on account of the Public

Account of the Federation, the custody or issue of
such moneys;
(I) the audit of the accounts of the Federal

Government or a Provincial Government ; and
(g) any matter incidental to any of the matters

specified in the preceding paragraphs.
(3) A Bill shall not be deemed to be a Money Bill by

reason only that it provides-
(a) for the imposition or alteration of any fine or

other pecuniary penalty, or for the demand or
payment of a licence fee or a fee or charge for any
service rendered ; or
(b) for the imposition, abolition, remission,

alteration or regulation of any tax by any local
authority or body for local purposes.
(4) If any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill

or not, the decision of the Speaker of the National
Assembly thereon shall be final.
(5) Every Money Bill presented to the President for

assent shall bear a certificate under the hand of the
Speaker of the National Assembly that it is a Money Bill,
and such certificate shall be conclusive for all purposes
and shall not be called in question."
According to sub Article 4 (supra) the decision of the Speaker qua the
nature of a Bill as to whethei the same is a Money Bill or not is
conclusive. In the matter, under discussion, the Parliament ventured to
pass Finance Bill 2008 after considering it as Money Bill. Further, a

"figq
W,P. No.24076 0(2013. --35--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. c2fPakistan etc.)
perusal of sub Article (5) of the afore-quoted Article renders it
explicitly clear that after approval of Money Bill by the National
Assembly, it is not mandatory rather optional to refer to the same to
the Senate. Moreover, the certificate issued by Speaker of the National
Assembly in support of authenticity of a Money Bill is considered
sufficient for soliciting requisite assent of the President. Further, the
said preposition has beautifully been dealt by a learned Division
Bench of this court in the case of Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Govt.
of Punjab and others (2012 PTD 798), in the following manner:-
"4. Under our Constitution, a Money Bill has a unique

position under Article 73(IA) of the Constitution. After
being passed by the National Assembly, a Money Bill
must be presented to the President for his Assent. When
so presented, the President must assent the same within
10 days in terms of the duty imposed by Article 75(1)(b)
of the Constitution read with Article 75(1)(a) thereof
Consequently, a duly passed Money Bill is legislation
that can be deemed under Article 75(2) of the
Constitution to have been assented by the President.
Therefore, on the day a Money Bill is passed, it is a
validly made law but one that comes into force not later
than ten days from the date of its presentation for the
Presidential Assent. In terms of proviso to Article 73(1)
of the Constitution, a Finance Bill is a Money Bill that
contains the Annual Budget statement for that year. For
the foregoing reasons the duly passed Finance Bill, 2007
is valid legislation which can be analogized with a
passed' Act for the Arposes of section 22 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897. Accordingly the challenge made by
the appellants has no force."
•
Further a Full Bench of the Sindh High Court, Karachi, in the case
reported as Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. and another v. Federation of
Pakistan and 3 others (1998 PTD 1804) while determining the

W.P. No.24076 Of 2013, ad --36--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.(
authenticity of a Money Bill after assent by the President has inter
alia held as under: -
"*****It may be pointed out that although Article 73 of

the Constitution provides for a different procedure in
respect of Money Bills but when the Bill has been
passed by the National Assembly and it receives assent
by the President, it will have effect like an Act of
Parliament. The fact that the Money Bill was not
transmitted to Senate, in no case places it at a lower
pedestal when compared to any other Act passed by the
Parliament. However, after raising the contention, Mr.
Khalid Ishaque did not support it by full length
arguments. We would, therefore, refrain from dilating
further on this question." (emphasis provided)
Even otherwise, according to mandate given under Article 77 read
with 97 of the Constitution, the Federation enjoys power qua the
matters in respect whereof the Parliament has been empowered to
legislate. The said question came under discussion before the august
Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of M/s Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and
others (Supra) wherein it has inter-alia been held as under: -
"The power of taxation rests on necessity, and is an essential

and inherent attribute of sovereignty belonging as a matter of
right to every independent State or Government. Such power is
an inherent one, and is not dependent on any grant by the
Constitution, or the consent of the owners of property subject to
taxation; Constitutional provisions with respect to taxation
constitute a limitation on the legislative power and not a grant
of power. The power to tax rests primarily in the State, to be
exercised by its Legislature, as discussed infra section 7, and
the State may exercise the power directly or may delegate such
power as political sub-divisions of the State, as considered in
infra section 8. The H exercise of the taxing power is a high
Governmental function, in invitum in nature. "(emphasis
provided).
W.P. No.24076 012013,
--37--
e.
There is nobody denying the competence of the National Assembly to
introduce any amendment in the laws relating to matters enumerated
under Article 73 of the Constitution while bypassing the procedure
provided under Articles 71 and 72 of the Constitution. Any act of the
National Assembly towards amendment of any provision of law
relating to a subject enumerated under Article 73 of the Constitution
cannot be declared ultra vires merely for the reason that the matter
was not assented to by the Upper House (Senate). As far as addition of
sub section 5 under section 31 of the Act 1997, through which the
government was empowered to impose surcharge, is concerned,
suffice it to note that the same still holds the field and till the time the
same is declared ultra vires by a competent forum, any action taken
thereunder cannot be dubbed as unconstitutional.
22. It has emphatically been argued on behalf of the petitioners that
the Surcharge in question was levied without resorting to CCI. Article
154 of the Constitution deals with formation and jurisdiction of CCI,
which for convenience of reference is reproduced herein below: -
154. Functions and rules of procedure. (1) The Council shall

formulate and regulate policies in relation to matters in Part
II of the Federal Legislative List and shall exercise
supervision and control over related institutions. (emphasis
provided)
(2) The Council shall be constituted within thirty days of the

Prime Minister taking oath of office.
(3) The Council shall have a permanent Secretariat and

shall meet at least once in ninety days:
W.P. No.24076 012013, --38--
Provided that the Prime Minister may convene a meeting

on the request Qf a Province on an urgent matter.
(4) The decisions of the Council shall be expressed in terms

of the opinion of the majority.
(5) Until [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] makes provision

by law in this behalf the Council may make its rules of
procedure.
(6) Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] in joint sitting may from

time to time by resolution issue directions through the Federal
Government to the Council generally or in a particular matter
to take action as Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) may deem just
and proper and such directions shall be binding on the Council.
(7) If the Federal Government or a Provincial Government

is dissatisfied with a decision of the council, it may refer the
matter to [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] in a joint sitting
whose decision in this behalf shall be final.
A cursory glance over the afore-quoted Article shows that the powers
of CCI are limited to formulate and regulate policies in relation to
matters in Part-II of the Legislative List. The following subjects form
Part-II of the Federal Legislative List:
"PART II
1. Railways.
2. Mineral oil and natural gas; liquids and

substances declared by Federal Law to be
dangerously inflammable.
3. Development of industries, where development

under Federal control is declared by Federal law
to be expedient in the public interest; institutions,
establishments, bodies and corporations
administered or managed by the Federal
Government immediately before the commencing
day, including the Pakistan Water and Power
Development Authority and the Pakistan Industrial
Development Corporation; all undertakings,
projects and schemes of such institutions,
establishments, bodies and corporations,
W.P. No.24076 0(2013. --39--
industries, projects and undertakings owned

wholly or partially by the Federation or by a
corporation set up by the Federation.
4. Electricity (emphasis provided)
5. Major ports, that is to say, the declaration and

delimitation of such ports, and the constitution and
powers of port authorities therein.
6. All regulatory authorities established under a

Federal law.
7. National planning and national economic

coordination including planning and coordination
of scientific and technological research.
8. Supervision and management of public debt.
9. Census.
10. Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of

members of a police force belonging to any
Province to any area in another Province, but not
so as to enable the police of one Province to
exercise powers and jurisdiction in another
Province without the consent of the Government of
that Province; extension of the powers and
jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging
to any Province .,tó railway areas outside that
Province.
11. Legal, medical and other professions.
12. Standards in institutions for higher education and

research, scientific and technical institutions.
13. Inter-provincial matters and co-ordination.
14. Council of Common Interests.
15. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this Part

but not including fees taken in any Court.
16. Offences against laws with respect to any of the
matters in this Part.
• /77*.t.
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013 --40--
17. Inquiries and statistics for the purposes of any of

the matters in this Part.
18. Matters incidental or ancillary to any matter

enumerated in thii Part."
A perusal of afore-quoted Part-II of the Federal Legislative List shows
that subject of electricity is available at Serial No.4. Now the next
query is as to which extent the CCI can formulate or regulate policies
relating to the subject of electricity. To me, the CCI can form policies
regarding electricity in respect of new projects or for resolution of a
dispute arising between two federating units but its scope cannot be
lowered down to determine Surcharge especially when after
enactment of the Act 1997 the matters regarding Generation,
Transmission and Distribution are being controlled by NEPRA. In
this scenario, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality has been
committed by the government while imposing surcharge without
intervention of CCI. Moreover,, a learned Division Bench of this
Court, while discussing the role ,of the CCI towards determination of
tariff, in the case of Shaikh Nadeem Younas, Chief Executive, Noble
Textile Mills Pattoki District Kasur (Supra) has inter-alia observed as
under: -
"17. Keeping in view the above-referred background and

contentions, first issue to be decided is as to who is to fix
the tariff. Argument from the petitioners' side except by
Mr. Qamar Afzal Khan, Advocate is that the tariff for
sale of power is to be fixed by the Provincial Government
within whose territorial jurisdiction the energy is being
distributed by WAPDA. Reliance in this behalf is placed
on the provisions of Article , 157 of the Constitution.
which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the
W.P. No.24076 012013.
--41--
(Flvinz Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
judgment. Argument' of Mr. Qamar Afzal Khan, Advocate

is that it is the Council, of Common Interests alone, who
can fix rates of tariff and neither the Authority nor the
Provincial Government is authorised to fix the price.
Case of the respondents, however, is that fixation of the
price of tariff is the prerogative of the Authority with the
approval of the FederaliGovernment as per provisions of
section 25 of the WAPDA Act, 1958
... Therefore, the argument that the tariff for

distribution of electricity is to be determined by the
Provincial Government is misconceived and, hence, is
repelled. For the same reasons argument addressed by
Mr. Qamar Afzal Khan, Advocate to the effect that it is
the Council of Common Interests who alone can
determine the price of electricity, the same is also
misconceived and is based upon misreading of the
relevant Article hence, is repelled. (emphasis provided)"
23. Now coming to the preposition as to whether after 18th
Amendment the provincial government has exclusive power to levy
any tax or surcharge on distribution of electricity in the province in
terms of Article 157 of the Constitution, I am of the view that though
the provincial government has., been empowered to levy tax on
distribution of electricity in the,province but the said fact does not
take away the powers of the Federal government to do so mainly for
the reason that exercise of such powers by the provincial government
is not mandatory rather optional. It is well entrenched by now that
when both Federal and Provincial Governments have simultaneous
jurisdiction to legislate qua a particular subject, preference should be
given to the Federal Government. Further, even after the introduction
of 18th Amendment subject of electricity is available at Item No.4 in

W.P. No.24076 Of 2013
(Flvinz Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
the Federal Legislative List thus the Federal Government was fully
competent to impose .the Surcharge under discussion. In this
backdrop, powers of the Federal government to levy any surcharge on
the electricity cannot be declared illegal merely on the ground that
provincial government enjoys the power to impose such levy/tax. The
said preposition also came under discussion before the august
Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills and
814 others (supra) wherein it has inter-alia been held as under: -
"18. It will not be out of context to point out that in the above
Article 157, the word "may" has been employed and not the
word "shall", meaning thereby that it is an enabling provision
and not a mandatory provision. The Federal Government and
the Government of a Province have discretion either to act
under the above Article or not to act. In other words, there is
no Constitutional obligation to carry out words or to take
action mentioned in the above Article. "(emphasis provided)
It is admitted position that even after 18th Amendment, the electricity
is simultaneously on the Federal and as well as Provincial Legislative
List, hence the Federal Government as well as the Provincial
Government can legislate qua the subject without entering into arena
of each other. In these circumstances, the argument raised on the
petitioners side that the surcharge on the distribution of electricity is
to be imposed solely by the Provincial Government is misconceived
and is accordingly spurned.
24. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that the impugned
Surcharge being excessive and unreasonable is not sustainable, iAtu

W.P. No.24076 Of 2013 -43--
fFlvinz Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
concerned, suffice it to observe that there is no denying the fact that
the price of the material which form components of the fuel being
used for production of electricity has increased manifold. To
exemplify the said fact day to day increase in price of furnace oil can
be quoted as precedent. According to the detail narrated by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf lof the Ministry of Water and Power,
average cost of a unit of electricity produced from all sources comes
to Rs.22/23 approximately whereas the same is being sold to the
consumers at the rate of Rs.18/19 per unit. In this backdrop, the levy
of Surcharge for a limited period cannot be considered exorbitant or
excessive especially in the wake of the subsidy being provided by the
government to different categories of electricity consumers.
25. Reverting to the question regarding powers of this Court to take
care of an action of the executive, I am of the considered opinion that
there is no second thought that this Court can exercise its powers as
contemplated under Article 199 of the Constitution to determine the
legality of an order passed by the executive provided it is established
on record that the action impugned seems to be arbitrary or mala fide
on account of colourable exercise on the part of the competent
authority or the same appears to be violative of any law of the land.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the cases reported as Dossani
Travels (Pvt) Ltd. and others v. M/s Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and
tv.P. No,24076 012013, --44--
others (PLD 2014 SC 1) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
inter alia been observed as follows:-
"*****Besides the task of allocating such quotas and

making arrangements for Hajj fell within the policy
making domain of MORA and in absence of any
illegality, arbitrariness or established mala fides, it was
not open for the learned High Court to annul the policy
framed by the competent authority. "(emphasis
provided)
• Further, the apex court of the country in the case of Dr. Akhtar Hassan
Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2012 SCMR
455) while highlighting guidelines for judicial review of a government
policy has inter alia observed as under:-
"Though its policies sometimes may be open to criticism

but that is for the concerned economists in the
government or academics to examine and opine but once
the Competent Authority in the government has taken a
decision backed by law, it would not be in consonance
with the well established norms of judicial review to
interfere in policy making domain of the executive
authority."
If we adjudge the validity of the impugned Notifications on the
touchstone of the principles highlighted in the above quoted judgment,

S
it is unequivocally clear that the same do not fall within the category
of documents where exercise of power of judicial review by this court
is justified. The said conclusion finds further support when the same is
visualized in the light of the fact that the government has been
empowered to levy surcharge. in terms of section 31(5) of the Act
1997. Moreover, the interference by this court in the impugned
notifications is also uncalled for the, reason that the provision under
‘114.44
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013,
--45--
which the same have been issued still holds the field and the
compelling circumstances behind their issuance are also apparent.
26. It has vehemently been argued on the petitioners side that
though the vires of sub section 5 of section 31 of the Act, 1997 have
not been specifically called in question but this court can strike it
down by following the rule of "reading down". In this regard, I am of
the humble view that while applying principle of harmonious
interpretation of a statute the courts may take note of matters of
common knowledge, the history of the times and may assume every
state of facts which can be conceived. It must always be presumed
that the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of
its own people and that discrimination, if any, is based on adequate
and intelligible grounds. Thus, in routine the courts would accept an
interpretation, which would be in favour of constitutionality rather
than the one which would render the same unconstitutional as the
latter is one of the last resorts. On the other hand, when the Court,
during the course of hearing of a matter, comes to the conclusion that
any provision of a statute offends against the parent legislation or is
violative of any provision of Constitution or the same was enacted by
an incompetent authority can declare it ultra vires while following the
principle of "reading down" or "reading into" the provision
irrespective of the fact as to, whether the vires of said provision has
been assailed before it or not. The principle of reading down has

W.P. No.24076 Of 2013. —46--
(F(vine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
beautifully been dealt with by apex Court of the country in the case
reported as Province of Sindh through' Chief Secretary and others v.
M.O.M. through Deputy Convener and others (PLD 2014 SC 531),
wherein it has inter-alia has held as under:-
"*****An argument was raised that the Court should make

every effort to save the statute and this can be done by invoking
the principle of 'reading in' or 'reading down'. However in this
context two principles have to be kept in view. First, that the
object of 'reading down' is primarily to save the statute and in
doing so the paramount question would be whether in the
event of reading down, can the statute remain functional?
Second, would the legislature have enacted the law, if that
issue had been brought to its notice which is being agitated
before the Court" (emphasis provided).
The question regarding "reading down" also came under discussion in
Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz (PLD 2011 SC 260)
wherein it has inter alia been observed as under: -
"Because according to the literal approach of reading a

statute, the statute has to be read literally by giving the
words used therein, ordinary, natural and grammatical
meaning. Besides, the addition and substraction of a
word in a statute is not justified, except where for the
interpretation thereof the principle of reading in and
reading down may be pressed into service in certain
cases; thus when in Entry No.9 actionable claim' has
not been provided by the legislature, it shall be
improper and shall impinge upon the legislative intent
and the rules of interpretation to add this expression to
the clause/entry. "(emphasis provided)
Further, a full Bench of this Court in the case reported as Arshad
Mehmood v. Commissioner/Delimitation Authority, Gujranwala and
others (PLD 2014 LIM 221), has inter-alia held as under: -
"***** The theory of reading down is a rule of interpretation

resorted to by the Courts where a provision, read literally.
/3.71AA
W.P. No.24076 0(2013. --47--
seems to offend a fundamental right, or falls outside the

competence of the particular legislature. In interpreting the
provision of a statute the courts will presume that the
legislation was intended to be inter vires and also reasonable.
The rule followed is that the enactment is interpreted
consistent with the presumption which imputes to the
legislature an intention of limiting the direct operation of its
enactment to the extent that is permissible. Legislature is
presumed to be aware of its limitations and is also attributed
an intention not to over-step its limits. To keep the act within
the limit of its scope and not to disturb the existing law beyond
what the object requires, it is construed as operative between
certain persons, or in certain circumstances, or for certain
purposes only, even though the language expresses no such
circumstances of the field of operation. To sustain law by
interpretation is the rule. The reading down of a provision of
a statute puts into operation the principle that so far is
reasonably possible to do so, the legislation should be
construed as being within its power. It has the principal effect
that where an Act is expressed in language of a generality
which makes it capabte, if read literally, of applying to matters
beyond the relevant legislative power, the court will construe
it in a more limited sense so as to keep it within power. If
certain provision of law construed in one way would make
them consistent with the Constitution and another
interpretation would render them unconstitutional the court
would lean in favour of the former construction. (emphasis
provided)
Moreover, this Court, in the case of Lone Cold Storage, Lahore v.
Revenue Officer, Lahore Electric Power Co. (2010 PTD 2502), has
inter-alia observed as under: -
"34. It is settled law that where literal construction or

plain meaning causes hardship, futility, absurdity or
uncertainty, purposive or contextual construction is
preferred to arrive at a more just, reasonable and
sensible result. "Every law is designed to further the ends
of justice and not to frustrate it on mere technicalities.
Though the function of the courts is only to expound the
law and not to legislate, nonetheless the legislature
cannot be asked to sit to resolve the difficulties in the
implementation of its intention and the spirit of the law.
In such circumstances, it is the duty of the court to
W.P. No.24076 Qf 2013, --48--
mould or creative[ inter ret the le islation b liberal!

interpreting the statute. The statutes must be interpreted
to advance the cause of statute and not to defeat it......"
Further, a full Bench of this Court in the case of Rub Nawaz
Dhadwana Advocate etc. v. Rana Muhammad Akram Advocate etc.
(W.P. No.16793 of 2014) while dealing with the question regarding
"reading down" a provision, has inter-alia observed as under: -
"Professor A. Barak emphasizes the importance of

"purposive interpretation" in the following manner:
"The aim of interpretation in law is to realize the
purpose of the law; the aim in interpreting a legal text
(such as a constitution or statute) is to realize the
purpose the text serves. Law is thus a tool designed to
realize a social goal. Itiis intended to ensure the social
life of the community, on the one hand, and human rights,
equality, and justice on the other. The history of law is a
search for the proper' balance between these goals, and
the interpretation of the legal text must express this
balance ...Every statute has a purpose, without which it
is meaningless. This purpose, or ratio legis, is made up
of the objectives, the goals, the interests, the values, the
policy, and the function that the statute is designed to
actualize. It comprises both subjective and objective
elements. The judge must give the statute's language
the meaning that best realizes its purpose." Subjective
purpose is not the only purpose relevant to statutory
interpretation, especially in situations where we lack
information about that purpose. Even when we do have
such information, it does not always help us in the
interpretive task. Moreover, even when we do find useful
information about the subjective purpose, we must keep
in mind that focusing on legislative intent alone fails to
regard the statute as a living organism in a changing
environment. It is insensitive to the existence of the
system in which the statute operates. It is not capable of
integrating the individual statute into the framework of
the whole legal system. It makes it difficult to bridge the
gap between law and society. Thus, it does not allow the
meaning of the statute to be developed as the legal
system develops. Rather, ,it freezes the meaning of the
statute at the historical moment of its legislation, which
71rvda.
W, P. No.24076 Of 2013. --49--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt, of Pakistan etc.)
may no longer be relevant to the meaning of the statute in

a modern democracy. If a judge relies too much on
legislative intent, the statute leases to fulfill its objective.
As a result, the judge becomes merely a historian and an
archaeologist and cannot fulfill his role as a judge.
Instead of looking forward, the judge looks backward.
The judge becomes sterile and frozen, creating
stagnation instead of progress. Instead of acting in
partnership with the legislative branch, the judge
becomes subordinate to a historical legislature. This
subservience does not accord with the role of the judge in
a democracy. The objective purpose of the statute means
the interests, values, objectives, policy and functions that
the law should realize in a democracy...just as the
supremacy of fundamental values, principles, and human
rights justifies judicial review of the constitutionality of
statutes, so too must that supremacy assert itself in
statutory interpretation. The judge must reflect these
fundamental values in the interpretation of legislation.
The judge should not narrow interpretation to the
exclusive search for subjective legislative intent. He must
also consider the "intention" of the legal system, for the
statute is always wiser than the legislature. By doing so
the judge gives the statute a dynamic meaning and thus
bridges the gap between law and society."
33. Lord Denning in Macgor & St Mellons Rural District

Council v New- port Corporation held: 'We do not sit
here to pull the language of Parliament and of
Ministers to pieces and make nonsense of it... We sit
here to find out the intention of Parliament... and we do
this better by filling the gaps and making sense of the
enactment rather than by opening it up to destructive
analysis "(emphasis provided)
According to afore-quoted judgments the foremost consideration
before the courts should be to save the statute while following the rule
of "reading down" or "reading into" a provision. Secondly, it is to be
seen that while following the said principle, can the statute remain
functional. Insofar as the case in hand is concerned, the question
which surfaces for adjudication by this court is that as to whether

r-irtdt
W. P. No.24076 Of 201.3,
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.) :t
section 31(5) of the Act 1997 can be declared ultra vires while
following the principle of "reading down". In view of the guidelines
framed in the afore-quoted judgments, firstly, it is to be seen that as to
whether the insertion of sub section 5 under section 31 of the Act
1997 offends against any provision of the parent statute (the Act
1997). A cursory glance over the Act 1997 in entirety renders it
crystal clear that sub section 5 of section 31 of the Act 1997 neither
offends against any clear cut provision of the parent statute or the
constitution nor runs against the purposes for which the Act 1997 was
promulgated inasmuch as the prime purpose for promulgation the Act
1997 is to streamline the affairs regarding Generation, Transmission
and Distribution whereas sub section 5 has been added just to enable
the government to recover any amount which is to be incurred by it
for implementation of uniform tariff irrespective of the determinations
of NEPRA in respect of `Rate' Charge' or 'Tariff. Though the
mainstay of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
after establishment of NEPRA, the government cannot impose
independent surcharge against the tariff determined by NEPRA but
the said plea is not worth consideration for the reason that from the
discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs it is clear that imposition
of surcharge does not fall within the domain of NEPRA. The second
condition precedent for declaring a provision ultra vires while
following the principle of "reading down" is the incompetence of the
authority to enact said provision. It is admitted position that sub

W.P. No.24076 012013
section 5 of section 31 of the AO 1997 was added by virtue of Finance
Act 2008 and there is no denying the 'fact that National Assembly can
amend any law or introduce any addition therein just to cope with the
future situation through Finance Act while exercising powers vested
under Article 73 of the Constitution. Thus, in the instant case both the
most vital conditions for declaring a provision ultra vires while
following rule of "reading down" are missing, thus the request of the
petitioners for declaring sub section 5 of section 31 of the Act 1997 as
such cannot be acceded to.
27. It is imperative to observe over here that the petitioners have
called in question the vires of Notifications whereby the Surcharge in
question has been imposed. It is bounden duty of this court to follow
the principles laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan
regarding Interpretation of StatUtes relating to fiscal matters. The
matter regarding interpretation of Statutes pertaining to fiscal matters
came under discussion in the case reported as H.R.C. No.40927-S of
2012 Application by Abdul Rehman Farooq Pirzada (PLD 2013 SC
829) in which the apex Court of the country, while highlighting the
principles on the subject, has inter alia observed as under:-
"The interpretation cannot be narrow and pedantic but the

Courts' efforts should be to construe the same broadly, so that
it may be able to meet the requirements of an ever changing
society. The general words cannot be construed in isolation
but the same are to be construed in the context in which they
are employed. In other words, their colour and contents are
derived from the context." (emphasis provided)
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013.
(Flvinv Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
--52--
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Elahi
Cotton Mills (Supra), while setting down guidelines for interpretation
of a Statute relating to taxation etc., has inter alia held as under:-
"31. From the above case-law and the treatises, inter alia the
following principles of law are deducible:—
(i
(ii) That Courts while interpreting laws relating to
economic activities view the same with greater latitude
than the laws relating to civil rights such as freedom of
speech, religion etc., keeping in view the complexity of
economic problems which do not admit of solution
through any doctrinaire or straitjacket formula as
pointed out by Holmes, J. in one of his judgments.
(iv) .........
(v) .........
(vi) .........
(vii) .........
(viii) That while interpreting Constitutional provisions
Court should keep in mind, social setting of the country,
growing requirements of the society/nation, burning
problems of the day and the complex issues facing the
people, which the Legislature in its wisdom through
legislation seeks to solve. The judicial approach should
be dynamic rather than static, pragmatic and not
pedantic and elastic rather, than rigid. "(emphasis
provided).
Similarly, the Islamabad High Court, in the case of OMV Pakistan
Exploration v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2013 PTD 1620)
has inter-alia observed as under: -
"*****There is no doubt that legislative history of a

fiscal statute could be traced and considered to
understand its scope, but such an effort is not required to
be made when there is no ambiguity in the statute
itself ....... In the interpretation of statute levying
taxes, it is established rule not to extend their provision
by implication, beyond the clear import of the language
used or to enlarge thir operation so as to embrace
14vat
W, P. No,24076 012013. --53--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd, Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
matters not specifically pointed out. Reference for the

sake of guidance may be made to PLD 1990 SC
332. "(emphasis provided).
If we adjudge the authenticiity of impugned Notifications on the
touchstone of the aforequoted judgments, there is no ambiguity left
that the reasons advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners do
not justify their setting aside.
28. As far as question regarding discrimination qua imposition of
impugned Surcharge is concerned, I am of the view that
discrimination against a group or an individual implies making an
adverse distinction with regard to some benefit, advantage or facility
with an element of unfavourable biasness. Article 25 of the
Constitution provides that all citizens are equal before law and entitled
to equal protection of law viz. all persons subjected to a law should be
treated alike both in respect of privileges conferred and in the
liabilities imposed. The equality must be amongst the equals. The
guarantee enshrined under this Article is only that no person or class
of persons shall be denied the same protection of law which is enjoyed
by other persons or other classes in the same set of circumstances. It
must, however, be kept in mind that though the persons similarly
situated or in similar circumstances are to be treated in the same
manner but the equality clause particularly the provision about the
equal protection of the law does not connote that all citizens shall be
treated alike under all set of circumstances and conditions. Equality of

46t4
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013 --54--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. elPakistan eta)
citizens does not mean that all laws must apply to all the subjects or
that all subjects must have the same.rights and liabilities. The concept
of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute
equality among humap being4 which is a physical impossibility. The
protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform.
In nutshell, classification which is not arbitrary, capricious or
violative of the doctrine of equality cannot be questioned in
constitutional jurisdiction of this court. In this respect, I stand guided
by the various verdicts of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan
including in the cases reported as Shahid Ahmed v. OGDC and others
(2014 SCMR 1008), Human Rights Case No.40927-S of 2012 (PLD
2013 SC 829) and Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad
and others v. Anwarul Hag Ahmed and others (2013 SCMR 1687).
In the case of Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad and
others (supra) the apex court of the country has laid law to the
following effect:-
"22. With regard to the arguments of the learned

counsel for the respondertts-students that the charging of
fee/endowment funds at higher rates from the students of
SFS as compared to other students is discriminatory as
well as violative of Article 9 read with Article 25 of the
Constitution, it is to be noted that Article 25 provides that
all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal
protection of law, and that there shall be no
discrimination on the basis of sex. However, by now it is
well settled that equality clause does not prohibit
classification for those differently circumstanced
provided a rational standard is laid down. The doctrine
of reasonable classification is founded on the
assumption that the State has to perform multifarious
activities and deal with a vast number of problems. The
W.P. No.24076 0(2013 —55--
(FIvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc, v, Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
protection of Article 25 of the Constitution can be

denied in peculiar circumstances of the case on
basis of reasonable' classification founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or
things that are grouped together from those who have
been left out." (emphasis provided)
While agitating the poilitt of discrimination, learned counsel for
the petitioners have argued that firstly the said surcharge has not been
•
imposed against the consumers of KESE (now K-Electric) and
secondly in the impugned notification, dated 05.08.2013, the same has
been confined only to industrial consumers. Taking up the point
regarding non-imposition of impugned surcharge against KESE (now
K-Electric), it is observed that character of K-Electric is entirely
different from the other DISCOs, GENCOs and Transmission
Companies, inasmuch as it is the sole electric company in the country
which has multiple licenses of Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, thus, said precedent cannot be used to establish the
discriminatory attitude on the part of the government while
• determining tariffs for different electric companies or imposing
surcharge. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the point of
discrimination can be agitated when the similarly placed persons are
treated differently but in the case in hand none of the distribution
companies/licensees of the petitioners/consumers, have multiple
licenses of Generation, Transmission and Distribution, thus, precedent
of K-Electric cannot be quoted to press into service point of
discrimination. The apex court of the country, in the matter of

/14,
W P. No.24076 Of 2013
iFIving Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission and others v. Muhammad Arif
and others (2011 SCMR 848), while dilating upon the question of
discrimination has held as•under:-
"8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove it can be

inferred safely that reasonable classification which is not
arbitrary or violative of doctrine of equality cannot be
questioned. We are not impressed by the contention made by
the learned Advocate Sflpreme Court on behalf of respondents
that it is a case of sheer discrimination because discrimination
means "making a distinction or difference between things; a
distinction; a difference; a distinguishing mark or
characteristic; the power of observing differences accurately,
or of making exact distinctions; discernment. But
discrimination against a group or an individual implies
making an adverse distinction with regard to some benefit,
advantage or facility. Discrimination thus involves an element
of unfavourbale bias and it is in that sense that the expression
has to be understood in this context (Shirin Munir v.
Government of Punjab (PLD 1990 SC 295), (Pakcom Limited v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 44). The learned
Advocate Supreme Court has failed to point out any
unfavourable bias which is an essential ingredient of
discrimination and it is not understandable that how it can be
pressed in to service. "(emphasis provided).
As far as contention of the petitioners that the surcharge in question
has been imposed against industrial consumers only is concerned,
suffice it to note that the same hardly establishes discrimination on the
part of the government for the reason that different tariffs are
determined for different consumers as is evident from the impugned
notifications and the Schedules annexed therewith. Apparently, while
determining tariffs for different category of consumers, the authorities
concerned have to consider the geographic position of area, nature of
supply and purpose of supply. Further, the apex court of the country in
W. P. No.24076 Of 2013 --57--
the case of M/s Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others (Supra), while
dealing with the question regarding power of the Legislature to draw a
line of distinction amongst different classes/groups of the society, has
inter-alia observed as under: -
"That the Legislature is competent to classify persons or

properties into different categories subject to different
rates of tax. But if the same class of property similarly
•
situated is subject to an incidence of taxation, which
results in inequality amongst holders of the same kind of
property, it is liable to be struck down on account of
infringement of the fundamental right relating to
equality."
In Human Rights Case No.14392 of 2013 (supra) being relied by Mr.
Azhar Siddique, Advocate, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has
directed that government should ensure provision of subsidy to the
consumers who are unable to pay the raising price of electricity. In
this regard, following lines from the said judgment are of prime
importance:-
• "Though subsidy is not the right of the consumers, the

Government being responsible for their welfare may
consider in near future to increase the rate of subsidy by
extending its benefits to the consumers, who are not in
a position to pay high charges of the electricity."
(emphasis provided)
When the apex court of the country has drawn a line of distinction
between different categories of consumers, it is not open for the
petitioners to press the said point into service to establish
discrimination. Further, it is observed without any fear of

/1014'
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013 --58--
(Rvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
contradiction that industrial consumers are comparatively financial
sound as compared to other categories of consumers, thus they cannot
be yoked with domestic consumers etc. in respect of tariff of
electricity.
29. Mr. Azhar Siddique, Advocate has argued that government
cannot withdraw any subsidy previously enjoyed by citizens of the
country in view of dictum laid down in the case Human Rights Case
No.14392 of 2013 (supra). The said assertion of learned counsel
seems to be worthless when the same is put in juxtaposition to the
following lines from the said judgment of the apex court of the
country in the said case:-
"*****However, the exorbitant tariff was reinstated

by NEPRA and the subsidy that is afforded to consumers
was taken away under section 31 of the 1997 Act vide
notification dated 10-10-2013 as noted in 22-10-2013. It
is not disputed that Government has the power to take
away subsidies......"
In the judgment being relied upon by Mr.Azhar Siddique, Advocate
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in unequivocal terms that
provision of subsidy is not vested right and the government enjoys
power to withdraw the same if already provided to the citizens.
Moreover, said assertion becomes irrelevant when the same is
considered while putting in juxtaposition to the fact that the question
involved in these petitions revolves around imposition of impugned
Surcharge and in no way deals.with the grant or withdrawal of subsidy

,-9,n1440
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013,
--59--
by the government.' With .utmost respect to the verdicts of the apex
Court of the country, when the government is bound to provide
electricity to certain categories of consumers at subsidized rates while
considering it as their fundamental right, it also reserves the right to
recover the expenditures being incurred on its Generation,
Transmission and Distribution in addition to any other charges from
the financially sound customers. In the wake of the economic
condition of the government at the relevant time the imposition of
impugned surcharge just to abridge the gap between the subsidy being
given to different categories of consumers and funds available with
the government neither the same can be considered unconstitutional
nor unjustified.
30. The question regarding imposition of EQ Surcharge also came
under discussion before a learned Division Bench of High Court of
Balochistan in C.P. Nos.8611`2011 and other allied matters. Operative
part of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan
reads as under:-
"13. We now turn to the remaining matter of the 'equalization

surcharge' which is referred to as 'EQ' surcharge in the bills.
Mr. Muhammad Shafiq stated that NEPRA does not impose the
equalization surcharge. The learned counsel for QESCO and
the learned DAG stated, that, the same was imposed vide
Notification SRO 233 (1)/2011 dated 15th March 2011 by the
Government of Pakistan.• the operative part of the said
notification is reproduced hereunder:
S.R.O. 233(I)/2011: In pursuance of sub-section
(4) of section 31 of the Regulation of Generation,
Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power
Act, 1997 -(Xl, of 1997), and in supersession of its
/1st%
W.P. No.24076 012013. --60--
(Flvinz Cement Co. Ltd, Etc. v, Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Notification No.S.R.O. No.1125(1")/2009, dated the

21" December, 2009, the Federal Government is
pleased to n.oti.15, the National Electric Power
Regulatory Authority's determination as per
Schedule-I to this notification for the quarter July-
September 2010 with effect from 1st October 2010
and applicable tariff as per Schedule-II to this
notification. In respect of the QESCO and it is
notified that QESCO shall receive payments from
its consumers at the rates as per Schedule-II The
difference between the relevant rates determined
by NEPRA as per Schedule-I and the rates charged
from the consumers as per Schedule-II shall be
paid to QESCO by the Federal Government.
Provided that there shall be levied a
surcharge @2% on the consumption of electricity
by every category of electricity consumer
mentioned in Schedule-H except consumption upto
300 units "Residential-A1".
Subsequently, the rate was enhanced from 2 to 4 % vide

Notification SRO 360(1)/2011 dated 6th May 2011, which was
further revised vide Notification SRO 698(1)/2013 dated 5th
August 2013, wherein on all consumers consuming more than
50 units of electricity were subject to a levy at the rate of 10
paisas per kilowatt hour and industrial consumers were levied
at the rate of 81 paisas per kilowatt hour. We were told that
NEPRA would determine the tariff in respect of each of the
electricity distribution companies, including QESCO, and the
Government of Pakistan would usually take the lowest tariff so
• determined and notify the same in Schedule II of the tariff

notification and notify the rates determined by NEPRA in
Schedule 1; the difference between the two rates was a subsidy
that the Government of Pakistan granted to the respective
distribution companies. The equalization charge attempted to
reduce the effect the financial impact of the subsidy granted by
the Government of Pakistan. It is further stated that QESCO is
one of the most inefficient units and receives the largest subsidy
from the Government of Pakistan, whereas the equalization
surcharge was uniformly applied throughout Pakistan, thus the
QESCO consumers had a lesser financial impact than those in
other provinces. The equalization surcharge however has been
discontinued with effect from 1" October 2013 (reference
Notification SRO 911(1)/2013 dated 11th October 2013 issued
by the Government of Pakistan). The equalization surcharge
was the difference between ,the two rates as mentioned above;
the Government of Pakistan first granted a subsidy and then
/Jr"
W. P. No.24076 0f2013 --61--
•
sought to reduce the financial impact thereof by imposing the

equalization surcharge, therefore, it would not be correct to
categorize the equalization surcharge as an additional
imposition. The financial gymnastics resorted to by the
Government was probably to cover the real price of electric
power borne by the consumer.
14. We therefore conclude that the fuel price adjustment and

the equalization surcharge are/were neither illegal nor
unconstitutional. Moreover, by the imposition of FPA and
equalization surcharge QESCO did not seek to recover
anything beyond the cost of the electricity consumed by the
petitioners. Therefore, we are constrained to dismiss these
petitions, but with no order as to costs. We had however
passed interlocutory orders restraining QESCO from the
recovery of the fuel price adjustment and equalization
surcharge and it may work hardship on the petitioners if they
are required to make immediate payment thereof Therefore,
following the precedent of the interim relief granted by the
Hon 'ble Supreme Court, the said amounts may be recovered by
QESCO in twelve equal'monthly installments."
According to information imparted by Additional Attorney General,
on the instructions imparted by the respondents, the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan, having not been
challenged any further, has attained finality. Thus, this court has been
left with no option but to follow the dictum laid down in
aforementioned case.
31. Insofar as the contention of Mr. Azahar Siddique, Advocate that
in absence of source the impugned surcharge is not justified, is
concerned, suffice it to note that from the discussion made in the
foregoing paragraphs it is clear that the same is part of the tariff to be
determined by the NEPRA. Further, when the legislature itself has
made it clear that same would be considered as cost of the electricity

W. P. No.24076 0(2013,
--62--
the said argument has little value. It is of common knowledge that the
government, in order to shale financial burden with the electricity
consumers who are unable to bear the day to day increase in the price
of the electricity, is providing subsidy. When the government is
facilitating the consumers in the shape of subsidy etc., it is our
national as well as moral obligation, in particular the well-off
persons/customers, to assist the government to wriggle out from
financial turmoil. The imposition of impugned surcharge also seems
to be reasonable when the. same is considered in the light of the fact
that the government, with a view to maintain harmony and integrity
amongst different federating units, has introduced a uniform tariff
qua companies having licetices of Generation, Transmission or
Distribution excluding KESE (now K-Electric) for the reasons
enshrined above. In this backdrop, the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that default on the part of consumers of one
company cannot be adjusted against the other has little value.
Moreover, we should not hesitate to alter our individual interests over
the national so that national harmony amongst the federating units
becomes strong & cohesive.
32. It is important to mention over here that with a view to further
streamline the affairs regarding Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, the government has introduced National Power Tariff
and Subsidy Policy Guidelines, 2014. According to the said policy, in
future, the quantum of E.Q. shall be determined by the NEPRA. The

/4-04-
W.P. No.24076 0f2013
--63--
said fact provides an answer to the query raised on behalf of the
petitioners that in terrns.of section 31(5) of the Act 1997 the executive
has been given unfettered power to levy surcharge without laying
down any criteria for its determination.
33. To establish that thg EQ Surcharge has been imposed to
facilitate the consumers of DISCOs who are being provided subsidy
or to make up the difference between the actual cost and line losses of
inefficient DISCOs, Mian Mehmood Rashid, Advocate, has referred
to National Power Tariff and Subsidy Policy Guidelines, 2014. Firstly
the same is not applicable in these cases for the reason that the same is
only to be operative from the year 2014 onwards and the same has
nothing to do with cases in hand. It is settled preposition of law that
no legislation or policy can be given retrospective effect until and
unless the legislature has decided so, thus, the reference made in this
behalf is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the instant
case. Even otherwise, if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted for a
moment that the impugned surcharge was levied just to abridge the
gap between the actual cost of the electricity and the subsidy being
provided by the government to the consumers of distribution
companies which have higher tariff, the same does not justify setting
aside of the impugned notifications simply for the reason that when a
uniform policy is being followed by the government towards
determination of tariff and other allied matters, it cannot be debarred

IV P. No.24076 Of 2013. --64--
to raise funds for said purpose. Further, in view of the ever changing
circumstances, it cannot be ruled out'that at some point the petitioners
may also be beneficiaries of the said policy, thus, instead of
challenging the same they should sacrifice something for their
brethren.
34. The suggestion poqd by Mr. Azhar Siddique, Advocate that
instead of putting extra burden on the consumers in the shape of
Surcharge or Additional Surcharge, the government should minimize
the line losses and lower down price of electricity by using less
expensive sources in particular hydel sources in addition to
controlling the pilferage of electricity, is worth consideration. For the
purpose first of all the government shall have to take stern action
against the persons who arei involved in electricity theft and the
officials/officers of the department who have facilitating role in this
respect. Likewise, in respect of tariff, while making uniform policy,
the output of the distribution company should be viewed critically and
the inefficient companies be put at guard in the first instance and in
case of non-improving they be blacklisted forthwith. Further, the
competent authority should take steps to control all kinds of losses
after supply of the generation like line losses, theft, etc., by using
modern devices. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the
uninterrupted supply of electricity for all types of consumers has
assumed identical role as that of blood in the human body. The

/2"
--65--
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013
government should take steps to produce electricity by using less
expensive sources. For the purpose, a detailed study can be
undertaken while considering the alternate sources of generation being
applied by the other countries. Further, for generation through thermal
sources, the local sources of fuel like coal, natural gas etc. should be
preferred. Furthermore, the renewable sources for generating
electricity including wind and solar power can also be utilized to
overcome this phenomenon.
35. Now coming to the case-law cited by learned counsel for the
petitioners, I am of the view that the same being quite distinguishable
from the facts and circumstances of present case is inapplicable
inasmuch while declaring the GIDC Act 2011 as ultra vires in the
judgment rendered in Federation of Pakistan through Secretary
Ministry of Petroleum & Natiural Resources and another v. Durrani
Ceramics & others (Civil Appeal Nos.1540-1590 of 2013 & 21 of
2014) the apex Court of the country has inter-alia observed as under: -
"*****True that such an advice or opinion or non-

reference of the matter to the Council of Common
Interest would not render the levy illegal or invalid
If we consider contention of the petitioners that the Surcharge was
imposed without referring the matter to CCI, the same is not worth
consideration firstly for the reasons enumerated above and secondly
the apex Court of the country has held that no enactment can be
declared ultra vires just for 'the reason that the same was promulgated
,t)04'
W.P. No.24076 0(2013, --66--
(Flying Cement Co. Lid. Etc. v. Govt, of Pakistan etc,)
without intervention of CCI provided the same otherwise stands
justified in the peculiar state Of affairs. As far as verdict of august
Supreme Court of Pakistan in Human Rights Case No.14392 of 2013
(Supra) is concerned, though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that the government is bound to ensure well-being of
citizens in terms of Article 38 of the Constitution but at the same time
a line of distinction has been drawn amongst different categories of
consumers in the said judgment, thus, the same is inapplicable for the
reason that in both the imptigned notifications the Surcharge has been
confined to comparatively well-off categories of consumers.
Moreover, the government with a view to fulfill its obligation towards
provision of subsidy on electricity to poor customers issued impugned
notifications thus the same are unexceptionable. In the case of
Engineer Zafar Iqbal Jhagra (Supra), the point, under consideration,
was regarding tax and in view of the discussion made in the preceding
paragraphs, as Surcharge is not a tax, thus the said case is quite
distinguishable. Now taking up the case of Alleged Corruption in
Rental Power Plants etc. (Supra) I am of the humble opinion that the
same pertains to corruption in rental power plants. Further though the
matters pertaining to NEPRA also came under discussion but as the
question of Surcharge having not been dilated upon by apex Court of
the country the same cannot riot be quoted in the present case rather
policies towards Generatiori, Transmission and Distribution of
electricity. In the cases of Pearl Continental Hotel and another,

W.P. No.24076 Of 2013. --67--
(Ryine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others, Pakistan Industrial
Development Corporation and Dawood Hercules (Supra), the flashing
point was the interpretation of Taxing Statutes in case of any
ambiguity whereas in the matter in hand the language of Section 31(5)
of the Act 1997 being self-explanatory, the said precedents are
irrelevant. Coming to the case of Wattan Party through President
(Supra), it is observed that the same is polls apart from the present
• case as none of the prepositions evolved in this case were discussed in
the said judgment. Insofar as the case of Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd.
(Supra) is concerned, it *as inter-alia held therein that in certain
cases which pertain to fundamental rights of the parties, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court can entertain a question which was not raised before
the lower forum, thus, the same has no relevancy with the instant case.
Now coming to the case of The Province of Punjab and another
(Supra) I have observed that in the said case the apex Court of the
• country has inter-alia framed guidelines for judicial review of a
legislation introduced on account of some emergency thus the same is
not aptly applicable to the present case. As far as the cases of
Collector of Customs and others, M/s Shahbaz Garments (Pvt.) Ltd.
and others, M/s Azgard Nine Ltd. and Abdul Majid and another
(Supra) are concerned, the preposition, under discussion, in the said
cases revolved around difference between the words "tax" and "fee"
whereas as it has been held that Surcharge is neither independent tax
nor fee, the said judgment is of no help to the petitioners. In the cases
W.P. No.24076 Of2013. --68--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc v. Govt. of Pakistan etc)
of Gatron (Industries) Limited and Govt. of Balochistan (Supra), the
apex Court of the country has inter-alia observed that equal protection
of law should be ensured whereas the instant case is quite
distinguishable for the reason that the test of reasonable classification
has been fully applied by the legislator while excluding different
categories of consumers from levy of impugned surcharge. The case
of Aftab Shahban Mirani (Supra) inter-alia deals with the principle
known as "due process of law" with reference to Article 4 of the
Constitution whereas in the instant case the impugned Surcharge was
levied subsequent to an amendment introduced in the Act 1997
through Finance Act 2008, Thus the same cannot be dubbed as having
been levied without due process of law. As far as case of M/s Elahi
Cotton Mills Ltd. and others (Supra) is concerned, the same instead of
lending any support to petitioners version seemingly supports the
version of the respondents that in the matters relating to interpretation
of fiscal matters judicial self-restraint should be shown by the courts.
In the matter of Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others (Supra) the
powers of CCI in respect of formation of policies regarding electricity
came under discussion but while responding to the preposition
regarding power of CCI to determine tariff, it has been held that CCI
has nothing to do with the same, thus, the same is quite
distinguishable. As far as the matter of Mian Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif (Supra), is concerned, its facts and circumstances being entirely
different stands polls apart from the instant case. Insofar as the case
W.P. No.24076 Of2013, --69--
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.).
of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division and others (Supra) is
concerned, the preposition involved therein was qua the mala fides on
the part of the authorities concerned. As no such element has been
pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners in these matters, the
said case also stands distinguished. The case of Haji Abdullah Khan
and others (Supra), has not the remotest connectivity with the case in
hand as the said case had arisen out of civil proceedings. The case of
Abdul Latif (Supra) is also distinguishable on the ground that in the

•
said case the apex Court of the country held that nobody should be
condemned unheard whereas no such question is involved in the
instant matter. The matter of Syed Feroze Shah Ghillani and others
(Supra) deals with the imelementation of the order passed by CCI,
thus, the same is quite distinguishable from the instant case. In the
case of Exide Pakistan Ltd. (Supra) the subject was the powers of the
Cantonment Board to levy Shop Board Fee whereas in the instant case
the situation being entirely different the same is not applicable here.
The case of Sanofi Aventis Pakistan Ltd. and others (Supra) deals
with the powers of the Federal as well as Provincial Government to
legislate qua a subject but in the instant matter when the item of
electricity is available in Federal Legislative List, that said precedent
has no relevancy with the case in hand. The judgments in the cases of
Rashid ur Rehman, National Industrial Cooperative Credit
Corporation Ltd. and another and Naseem Mehmood (Supra) are not
relevant to the case in hand as having been rendered in entirely

W.P. No.24076 0(2013..
—70--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. o -Pakistan etc.)
different backdrop. So far as the case of Standard Chartered Bank
(Supra) is concerned, the legal'question involved in the said matter, in
pith and substance, was the powers of NEPRA to determine rate,
charge and tariff whereas in the instant case the question is as to
whether the NEPRA has the power to determine Surcharge, thus, the
same is on quite distinct footing. So far as judgments in cases of
I.T.As Nos.3934/LB/2002 and other allied matters and I.T.As
Nos.5138/LB/2004 and another allied matter (Supra) are concerned,
the having been rendered by different Tribunals have no binding force
on this court.
36. As a necessary corollary to discussion in the fore-going
paragraphs, I have no doubt in my mind to hold that Surcharge is
entirely different from `Rate' Tariff and 'Charge' and Government
enjoys power to impose the same with or without courtesy of NEPRA.
Further when valid grounds for reasonable classification are available
no legislation can be annulled on the ground of discrimination.
Consequently, I see no merits in these petitions which are accordingly
dismissed with the observation that the amount due on account of
impugned Surcharge, if any, iagainst the petitioners due to restraint
order issued by this court during pendency of these petitions shall be
recovered by the Government in twelve equal monthly installments.
There shall be no order as to costs.

/Zen,
W.P. #0.2 ,1076 bf2013,
(Flying Cement Co. Lid. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
•
37. Before parting with this judgment, I am of the view that it

. .
would not b outut of place to appreciate the assistance rendered by the
Research Centre of this Court, in particular M/s Mohsin Mumtaz and
Qaisar Abbas, Research Officers. I hope that the members of the
Research Centre shall, continue with this spirit of enthusiasm and
commitment in future as, well. Sak-SHICAAT ATAT EAAN

znas
Annonne ed:' in ti Omitt-6ii ;;;11-T,g6;i14
• 224m
G.F, • ' OV—SHAILAT ALI
• • JtIVE
. • '111U JAI. COPY

In Case No ..... ......
Examiner: J.C.B (Copyi!r Ain 1/

Lahore High Colirt, ore.
S
Schedule-B
• - Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013.
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. etc. Versus Govt of Pakistan etc.)
1 11161-11 M/s Sitara Chemical v. WAPDA etc.

2 11162-11 Gulshan Spinning v. WAPDA etc.
3 11163-11 Gulshan Weaving v. WAPDA etc.
4 11164-11 Gulistan Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
6 11166-11 Colony Industries v. WAPDA etc.
7 11167-11 . Gulistan Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
8 11517-11 Maufair Spinning Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
9 11518-11 Ehsan Raiwind Mills v. WAPDA etc.
10 13890-11 North Star Textile v. WAPDA etc.
11 15290-11 M/s Quality Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
12 . 16805-11 Itehad Chemical Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
13 16806-11 M/s Shoaib Steel Mills v. WAPDA etc. .1
14 16807-11 Idrees Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
15 16808-11 Premier Papers Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
16 16809-11 Mandiali Paper (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. ,
17 16810-11 M/s Aziz Industires v. WAPDA etc.
18 16811-11 M/s Batala Steel Mills v. WAPDA etc.
19 16812-11 M/s Sidi Steel Industires .V. WAPDA etc.
20 16813-11 M/s Capital Steel Mills. V. WAPDA etc.
21 16814-11 Bashir Sons v. WAPDA etc.
22 16891-11 NTP Gelatine (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA
23 16892-11 M/s Kareem Steel Industry v. WAPDA
24 16893-11 Quetta Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
25 16818-11 Sheikhupura Textile Mills Ltd. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.
26 16822-11 Sohail Textile Mills Ltd. v. Govt. of the Paldstan and others
27 16821-11 E.P.C.T. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Govt. of the Pakistan and others
28 16820-11 Chiniot Textile Mills Ltd. v. Govt. of the Pakistan and others
29 16819-11 Ayesha Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Govt. of the Pakistan and others
30 16823-11 East Pakistan Chrome Tannery Ltd. v. Govt. of the Pakistan and others
31 16660-11 M/s Ehsan Cotton Products Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
32 16661-11 M/s Taj International' (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
33 16662-11 M/s Madina Steel Industries v. WAPDA etc.
34 16957-11 Sapphire Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA, etc.
35 16958-11 Reliance Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA, etc.
36 17081-11 Yousaf Weaving v. WAPDA etc.
37 17082-11 Kamalia Steel v. WAPDA etc.
td. v. WAPDA, etc.
35 1/V03-11
39 17084-11 Fatima Enterprises Ltd. v. WAPDA, etc.

40 17085-11 Sunrays Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA, etc. •
41 16992-11 Sajid Paper Mills v. WAPDA etc.

42 17146-11 M/s Fine Steel etc. v. WAPDA etc.
43 17377-11 Habib Haseeb Spinnifig Mills v. WAPDA etc.
44 17378-11 M/s Ali Riasat Steel Industries v. WAPDA etc.
45 17172-11 M/s Mazhar Steel v. WAPDA etc.
46 17472-11 Azgard 9 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
47 17530-11 Mian Muhammad Yaseen Saeed v. WAPDA etc.
A n • 1 ,1 el 1 11 1,1"1,,,,,,,,m0A Qappri CI, V WAP5A etc.
Schedule-B.
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013. 211D age
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Sr.:# ,Case:NO. Titik. :1,'::::::' . ,,,,, ' , :;',',:..::-:.. •.::::),"

49 17532-11 Ch. Muhammad Javaid v. WAPDA etc.
17533-11 Ayaz Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. ,
50
51 • 17536-11 Hajra Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
52 17877-11 Khalid Shafique Spinning v WAPDA etc.
53 17878-11 . Nishat Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA ete.
54 17887-11 Masood Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
55 17886-11 Mahrnood Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
56 17955-11 Masood Fabrics v. WAPDA etc.
57 17956-11 Azgard Nine Ltd. v.IVAPDA etc.
58 17957-11 Roomi Fabrics Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
59 17911-11• M/s Rehmat Nazir Rayon v. WAPDA etc.
60 18360-11 Superior Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
61 18361-11 Hira Terry Mills v. WAPDA etc.
62 18362-11 Sargodha Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
63 18457-11 Siara Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA
64' 18565-11 M/s Malik Board & Power Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
65 18149-11 M/s Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
66: 18148-11 Shahzad Textile v. WAPDA etc.
67 18418-11 Ghazi Fabrics International Ltd. v. WAPDA
68 18566-11 M. Zahid, Pervaiz Steel v. WAPDA
69 18630-11 Shalimar Steel Re-Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA
70 18805-11 Secretary Model Town Cooperative Society v. WAPDA etc.
71 18714-11 SN Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. WAPDA etc.
72 18646-11 M/s Afaq & Danyal Steel Industries v. etc.
73 18647-11 M/s JP Industries' v. WAPDA etc.
74 18648-11 Anmol Engineering Works v. WAPDA etc.
75 18649-11 Malik Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. WAPDA etc.
76 18650-11 M/s 'rariq Steel v. WAPI5A. etc.
77 18651-11 M/s Pak Steel Industry v., WAPDA etc.
78 18652-11 M/s Ali Enterprises v. WAPDA etc.
79 18653-11 M/s Paramount v. WAPDA etc.
80 18654-11 M/s Beco Steel Re-Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
81 18655-11 M/s Chaudhry Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. WAPDA etc.
82 18656-11 M/s Chaudhry Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. WAPDA etc.
83 18679-11 Pak Kuwait Textile etc. v. WAPDA etc.
84 18680-11 New City Steel etc. v. WAPDA etc.
85 18681-11 Kamran Steel etc. v. WAPDA etc.
86 18682-11 Afco Metals etc. v. WAPDA etc.
87 18683-11 Spincot Textile etc. v. w Arum. etc.
88 18684-11 New Shalimar Steel etc. v. WAPDA etc.
89 18875-11 M/s Chenab Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
90 18876-11 M/s Pak China v. WAPDA etc.
91 18514-11 Arain Fibers Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
92 18515-11 Suleman Spinning Mills V. WAPDA
93 18516-11 Rahim Bakhsh Textile Mills. v. WAPDA
94 18517-11 Arain Mills v. WAPDA
95 18518-11 Al-Hamd Corp: v. WAPDA etc.
96 18519-11 Arain Textile v. WAPDA etc.
97 18532-11 Ahmad Hassan Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
98 18750-11 Ellcot Spinning Mills Ltd. etc. v. WAPDA etc.
99 18724-11 M/s Fiber Dyeing (Pvt) Ltd. v. WAPDA, etc.
100 18660-11 M/s Cool Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
Schedule-B.
- • Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013. 3IP age
• •
.Sr . :C asa) i; -'' • ' . '.: - ,..„ ;;:g:'''',; ; - . fq`'';3:5V),:=, /
•101 . 18662-11 M/s Shaheen Paper and Board Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
102 1.8663-11 M/s Muhammadi Paper and Board Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
103 18661-11 * M/s New Modem Steel Industries v. WAPDA etc.
104 18667-11 M/s Siddique Sons v. WAPDA etc.

105 18668-11 M/s. Al-Riaz v. WAPDA' etc. ,
106 18669-11 M/s Al-Riaz v. WAPDA etc.
107 18670-11 M/s Sharmaine v. WAPDA etc.
108 . 18671-11 • M/s King Embroidery v. WAPDA etc.
109 1873311 M/s HK Steel Mills v. WAPDA, etc.
110 18731-11 M/s Imdad Hussain Re-Rolling Mills v. WAPDA, etc.
111 18807-11 Barkat Textile Mills etc. v. WAPDA. etc.
112 18854-11 Fine Gas Co. v. WAPDA etc.
11.3 18855-11 Al Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
114 18856-11 Shan Steel v. WAPDA etc:
115 18857-11 Abu Bakar Textile v. WAPDA etc.
116 18858-11 Ayesha Textile v.. WAPDA etc.
117 19085-11 Acro Spinning & Weaving v. WAPDA etc.
118 19079-11 Sally Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
119 19086-11 Dg Khan Cement Co. v. WAPDA etc.
120 19087-11 Imperial Textile v. WAPDA
121 19088-11 Dg Khan Cement v. WAPDA etc.
122 19270-11 Zahid Jee Textile v. WAPDA
123 .19237-11 Diamond Fabrics v. WAPDA
124 19238-11 WiSal Kamal Fabrics Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
125 19239-11 Ali Akbar Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
126 19274-11 M/s Ali Akbar Textile v. WAPDA etc.
127 19139-11 Bilal Textile v. WAPDA etc..
128 19140-11 Sangain Steel v. WAPDA etc.
,.--, , on,' e 1 1 - k i 1... r•:..... o+,..,.1 T T A L' ‘, • UT A PrIA ph.
130 19367-11 Service Industries v. WAPDA etc.

131 19369-11 City Tower Management v. WAPDA etc.
132 19371-11 Blessed Textile Mills etc. v. WAPDA etc.
133 19373-11 Services Industries v. WAPDA etc.
134 19375-11 Amin Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
135 19387-11 M/s Maqbool Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
136 19391-11 M/s Allah Wassaya Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
137 19386-11 M/s Maqbool Textile v. WAPDA
138 19388-11 M/s Allah Wassya Teitiile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
139 19390-11 M/s Allah Wasaya Mills v. WAPDA etc.
140 19372-11 Blessed Textile v. WAPDA etc.
141 19374-11 Shahtaj Textile v. WAPDA etc.
142 19368-11 Faisal Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
143 19370-11 Bhanero Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
144 19389-11 M/s Mehmooda Mqbool Mills v. WAPDA
642-11 Nishat Chunian Ltd. etc. v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
146 19633-11 Samin Textile v. WAPDA etc.
147 19634-11 Sajjad Textile v. WAPDA etc.
148 19635-11 N.P. Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
149 20506-11 M/s Habib Steel v, WAPDA etc.
150 19365-11 Wahla Cold Storage v. WAPDA etc.
151 19523-11 Us Denim Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
1 cn 1 cr7-1K_I 1 Witte Muehtan CnId Storage v. WAPDA etc.
Schedule-B.,
41Page
i
Sr.# Casd No Title. . ,
153 19708-11 . M/s Maple Leaf Cement Factory v. WAPDA etc.
. 154 19802-11 M/s Jamal Steel Mills Ltd.,v. WAPDA etc.
155 20074-11 .Tayyab Tektile•Mills etc. v. WAPDA etc.
1'56 ' 20405-11 Aashir Imran Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
157 20100-1.1 M/s Mandi Cold Storage, etc. y. WAPDA etc.
158. 20469-11 Akram Cotton Mills Ltd..v. WAPDA etc.
159 20512-11 M/s Wali Oil Mills v. WAPDA
160 20744-11 M/s Nasira Weaving Mills v. WAPDA
161 2088'1-,11 Muhammad Farooq v. WAPDA
' 1.62. 21042-11 Ehsan Younas & Brothers etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.
163 •20585-11 Haidery Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc.
164 20566-11 M/s Baba Fareed Steel v. WAPDA etc.
1.65 20975-11 M/s Hassan Spinning v. WAPDA etc.
166 , 20937-11 M/s kaza Molding v. iWAPDA etc.
167 21087-11 M/s A.H. Steel Mills v. WAPDA etc.
168 21301-11 Shaukat Ali v. WAPDA etc.
169 21302-11 Imran Alunad v. WAPDA etc.
1.70 21447-11 I.C.C. Textile v. WAPDA etc.
171 . . 21448-11 Anmol Textile v. WAPDA etc.
172 21449-11 Shoaib Salman Textile v. WAPDA etc.
173 21166-11 Farooq Spinning Mills etc. V. WAPDA etc.
174 21184-11 Abid Kaleem v. WAPDA etc.
175 21120-11 M/s Husain Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
176 21121-111 M/s Husain Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. 1
177 2112211 M/s Naseen.Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
178 21123-11 M/s Husain Mills Ltd. V. WAPDA etc.
179 21254-11 Neelibar Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc,
180 21187-11 M/s Fawad Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
181 21191-11 M/s CresCent Bahuman Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
182 21635-11 PB Industrial Estate etc. v. WAPDA etc.
183 22097-11 M/s Rupafil Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
184 •22098-11 M/s Rupali Polyester Ltd. etc. v. WAPDA etc.
185 22489-11 Shahab Dyeing & Processing Mills v. WAPDA etc.
186 22459-11 Taymur Spinning Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
187 22679-11 M/s Zenotex (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc:
188 22680-11 Shahraj Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
189 22811-11 S.N. Textile Mills etc. v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
190 23003-11 M/s Badami Bagh Steel v. WAPDA etc.
191 22897-11 M/s Yummy Milk Product Private Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
192 23155-11 M/s Shafi Reso Chem v. WAPDA etc.
193 23154-11 M/s Siddique Leather Works v. WAPDA etc.
194 23421-11 Ali Haq Spinning Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
195 23523-11 Bashir Cotton Mills v. WAPDA etc.
196 23524-11 Model Steel Industries v. WAPDA etc.
197 23489-11 M/s Tanveer Spinning v. WAPDA etc.
198 23490-11 Tanveer Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
19,9 23491-11 Ravi Spinning Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
200 23493-11 M/s Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
201 23494-11 New Horizon Spinning (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
202 23496-11 Khawaja Shahbaz Ahmad v. WAPDA etc.
203 23395-11 S.K. Cotton Waste Factory v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
204 22899-11 M/s First Treet Manufacturing Modraba v. WAPDA etc.
Schedule-B.
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013. .'5J P a ge
(Flying Cepient Co. Ltd etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.) •' • • •
. •
.::,,.
•SK#4006.0(44 Aaiticqt:::13,V3‘.;;
205 22898-11 M/s Treet Corporation Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.

206 22968-11. New Age Cables (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Govt. Of Paldstan etc.
207 23238-11 Burraq Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
208 23202-11 M/s Precision Forging (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. .
209 23258-11 A.H. Steel v. WAPDA etc. .
210' 23871-11. Muhammad Ayub SarWar v. WAPDA etc.
211 23865-11 Ijaz Hussain v. WAPDA etc..
212 23869-11. Waqar Younas Re-Rolling Mills v. WAPDA etc.
213 . 23867-11 Muhammad Riaz v. WAPDA etc.
• 214 23621-11 M/s Madni Steel v. WAPDA etc.
215 23631-11 M/s Arsam Pulp & Paper Board v. WAPDA etc.
216. 23627-11 M/s Qadria Board Mills v. WAPDA etc.
217 23721-11 Fahad Javaid Spinning Mills etc. v. WAPDA etc.
218 23877-11 Nasir Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc.
219 23879-11 New Punjab Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc. .
220 .23858-11 Haroon Fabrics (Pa.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
221 23832-11 Chakwal Textile v. WAPDA etc.
222 ;23660-11 A.A. Spinning v. WAPDA etc.
223 24065-11 M/s Best Export v. WAPDA etc.
224 23626-11 M/s Pioneer Cement Ltd v. WAPDA etc.
225 23880,11 Tayyaba Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc.
. 226' 25881-11 Rehmat Flour Mills V. WAPDA etc.
227 23882-11 Madina Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc.
228 23866-11 Abdul Jabbar v. WAPDA etc.
229 23868-11 Aurangzeb v. WAPDA etc.
230 24046-11 Flying Board & Paper v. WAPDA etc.
231 24075-11 Mirza Abdul Karim etc. v. WAPDA etc.
232 24021-11 Khalid Nazir Spinning Mills etc. v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
233 23630-11 Mm/S. Ravi Flour Mills Lahore v. WAPDA etc.
234 24126-11 A.F. Steel Rerolling v. WAPDA etc.
235 24127-11 Amir Asim Steel Rerolling v. WAPDA etc.
236 24128-11 Asim Wire & Nut Bolt v. WAPDA etc.
237 23870-11 Muhammad Siddique v. WAPDA etc.
238 23862-11 Naziran Bibi v. WAPDA etc.
239 23878-11 Data Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc. '
240 24036-11 M/s Flying Paper Industries v. WAPDA etc.
241 24044-11 Flying. Cement Co. v. WAPDA etc.
242 24197-11 M/s MLW Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
243 23827-11 Bilal Fibers v. WAPDA etc.
244 . 24366-11 Muhammad Saeed etc. v. WAPDA etc.
245 24078-11 M/s H.A.R. Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
246 24040-11 Muhammad Usman v. WAPDA etc.
247 24024-11 Hassan Foundries v. WAPDA etc.
248 23864-11 Muhammad Rizwan Muhammad Ramzan v. WAPDA etc. y. ,.. .
249 24151-11 R.G.M. Weaving Factory etc. v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
250 23863-11 Ghulam Rasool Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
251 24435-11 M/s Ibrahim Steel Casting & others v. WAPDA etc.
252 24363-11 Kohinoor Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
253 24819-11 M/s Fazal Sons v.' WAPDA etc.
254 24829-11 M/s Aflab Sons Match Ind. v. WAPDA etc.
255 24475-11 Al-Rehman Industries v. WAPDA etc.
154 1 401-11 M/s Aftab Scms v. WAPDA etc.
Sctiedule43.
•• Writ Petition 1Vo.24076 Of 2013,
Aar
257 24330-11 Pakistan Flour Mills Association v. WAPDA etc.
258 25267-11 M/s Mohid Industries v. WAPDA etc.
259 2524911 Abdul Rashid Weaving Mills etc. v. WAPDA etc.
260 ' 25594-11 M/s Nizami Wire Industries v. WAPDA etc.
261. • 5699-11 Nisar. Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
262 . 25599-11 M/s Royal PolytexInduitries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
263. 25656-11 Chiragh Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
264 26081-11 M/s Shaheen Stone Grinding Industries v. WAPDA etc.
265 25665-11 Cool Point Industries v. WAPDA etc.
266 25714-11 M/s Latif Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
267 25702-11 M/s Pakistan Vinyl Industries v. WAPDA etc.
268 25798-11 M/s Unexo Labs (Pvt.):ILtd. v. WAPDA etc.
269 25938-11 . M/s Al-Karm Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v.. WAPDA etc.
'270 25796-11 M/s Usman Cotton Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v, WAPDA etc.
271 25879-11 Al-Madina Steel Mills etc. v. WAPDA etc.
272 25811-11 M/s Coca Cola Beverages Pakistan Ltd: v. WAPDA etc.
273 25805-11 M/s Shaheen Gana Factory etc, v. WAPDA etc.
274 25849-11 M/s Rahim Enterprises v. WAPDA etc.
275 25901-11 Ch. Azam Ali v. WAPDA etc.
276 . 26033-11 M/s Yasir Ikram Rice Food Farm etc. v. WAPDA 'etc.
277 25867-11 M/s Angora Textile Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
278 26101-11 M/s Rehan Enterprises v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
279 25924-11 Tabish Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
280 25836-11 M/s Al Badar Engineering v. WAPDA etc.
281 2.6050-11 M/s Miraj Din Steel v. WAPDA etc.
282 25712-11 Chenab Rice Mills etc. v. WAPDA etc.
283 26391-11 M/s Azhar Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
284 25981-11 Lessee Of Lasani Cold Storage Lahore v. WAPDA etc.
285 ' 2056-11 M/s Arunol Paper Mills v. WAPDA etc.
286 26058-11 Naveed Agencies etc. v. WAPDA etc.
287 26082-11 M/s Shaheen Grinding Industries v. WAPDA etc.
288 26102-11 Diamond Tyres Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
289 26224-11 Kashif Mehmood v. WAPDA etc.
290 26379-11 M/s Aslam Textile v. WAPDA etc,
291 26526-11 Babur Sher CNG etc. v. WAPDA etc.
292 26674-11 Ghous'Fibers v. Government of Pakistan etc.
293 26530-11 Muhammad Akram etc. v. WAPDA etc.
294 26139-11 M/s S.J. Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. WAPDA etc.
295 26361-11 Maqbool Usman v. WAPDA etc.
296 26179-11 Shakargang Mills Ltd. etc. v. WAPDA etc.
297 26431-11 Arzoo Textile v. WAPDA etc.
298 26378-11 M/s C.A Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
299 26506-11 AAA Doublers Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
300 26508-11 Facto Cement v. WAPDA etc.
301 26510-11 M/s Three Star Hosiery Mills v. WAPDA etc.
302 26768-11 Umar Ijaz Textile eta. v. WAPDA etc.
303 26750-11 Umair Tariq Butt v. WAPDA etc.
304 26586-11 Tariq Nisar v. WAPDA etc.
305 26688-11 M/s Rafique Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
306 26602-11 M/s Makka Cold Storage etc. v. WAPDA etc.
:307 )26.889-11 Muhammad Shoib etc. v. WAPDA etc.
308 26943-11 M/s Malees Cafe v. WAPDA
Schedule-B:
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013. 71Page
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. eta Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
six
Si: : mile f . ' a'64
1.'4*fti k '' e ga. ," AiRiet A
309 26862-11 •M/s Dandot Cement Co. etc. v. WAPDA etc.

310 26692,11 M/s Shahbaz Garments (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
311. :26736-11 M/s Mushtaq Enterprises Y. WAPDA etc.
31.2' 26519-11 Kausar Processing Industries v. WAPDA etc.
313 26804-11 Jan Muhammad Cold Storage v., WAPDA etc.
314 26908-11 M/s Yasmin Weaving v: WAPDA etc.
315 26962-11 Arfeen Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v.. G.O.P etc.
316 27063-11 M/s Jeea Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
317 27017-11 La1R7ar Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
.318 27108-11 Sayyed Engineers v. WAPDA etc.
319 27109-11 M/s Zamindar Chemicals v. WAPDA etc.
320 27107-11 Sayyed Stationary v. WAPDA etc.
321 26808-11 M/s Pioneer Board Mills v. WAPDA etc.
•322 26809-11 ' M/s Maaher Food Industries v. WAPDA etc.
323 26525-11 Madina EnterPriSes etc. v. WAPDA etc,
324, 26601-11 Muhammad Shalceel Weaving Factory etc. v. WAPDA etc.
325 27755-11 Kohinoor Tektile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
326. 27745-11 M/s Al-Quraish Paper Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
327 27744-11 M/s Al-Quraish Pet Dottie§ (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
328 27831-11 M/s Lasani Fiber Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
329 28051-11 Nauman Shakil etc. v. WAPDA etc.
330 27989-11 Insaf Plastic etc. v. WAPDA etc.
331. 28226-11 Khalid Petroleum v. WAPDA etc.
332 2833.9-11 White Pearl Rice Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
333 28453-11 M/s Combine Spinningi Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
334 2836:1-11 Muhammad Ijaz Alam v. WAPDA etc.
335 28611-11 M/s Mirza Youths Foundry etc. v. WAPDA etc.
336 28867-11 M.A Polymar v. WAPDA etc.
337 28463-11 Rehari Malik v. WAPDA etc.
338 28777-11 M/s Modern Fabrics v. WAPDA etc.
339 28795-11 M/s Lyallpur Textile v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
340 28468-11 Dr: 'Behjat Majid v. WAPDA etc.
341 •2834241 M/s Marjan CNG v. WAPDA etc.
342 28618-11 Sahiwal Cold Storage Association v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
343 29077-11 M/s New Chaudhry Firers v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
344 28895-11 Muhammad Zafar etc. v. WAPDA etc.
345. 28744-11 Resham Textile v. WAPDA etc.
346 28868-11 Shafqat Parveen v. WAPDA etc.
347 28794-11 M/s Pak Italian Ceramics v. WAPDA etc.
348 28768-11 M/s Fawad Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
349 28918-11 Faisal Akram etc. v. WAPDA etc.
350 29122-11 Kohinoor Textile v. WAPDA etc:
351 78742 M/s Noor Hussain v. WAPDA etc.
352 85442 Tata Textile v. WAPDA etc.
353 1877-12 Reliance Weaving v. WAPDA etc.
354 85342 Thal Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
355 .1878-12 Faisal Saleem etc. v.' WAPDA etc.
356 1740-12 Fatima Enterprises v. WAPDA etc.
357 2475-12 Sardar Pur' Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
358 4322-12 M/s Ali Steel Furnace etc; v. WAPDA etc.
359 6276-12 M.S Bhimra Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
360 6477-12 M/s Compact Particle Board (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. ,....
Schedule-g.
Writ Pe(ition No.24076 Of 2013.
C61ie4nt Co. Ltd etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
''Si.ikrtakNigg, tiffel:;.:- '

361 6447-12 Shahzad Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
362 6448-12 Golden Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. '
363 . :1 6290-12 M/s A.T.S. Synthetic (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
364 7145-12 Lahore Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. i
' 365 7470-12. Faisalabad Steel IA WAPDA etc,
•366, 7108-12 M/s N.A Steel Industry etc. v. WAPDA etc.
367 8716-12 Acro Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. 1
368 9450-12• M/s Al Sheikh Foundry v. WAPDA etc. "
369. 9459-12 M/s Abdul Majid Steel Furnace etc. v. WAPDA etc. 1
370 9460-12 M/s Gamada Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
371 10102-12 Hamid Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. Govt Of The Pakistan etc.
372 10322-12 Bhatti Cotton Links v. The Govt Of The Pakistan etc. 1
' 373 11841-12 M/s Be Be Jan Colour Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
' 374 1.2195-12 M/s Kohinor Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
375 1294,6-12 Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
' 376 12891-12 J.K. Tech (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
377 12893-12 Health Med Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
378. 12880-12' M/s Nizami Steel Mills v. WAPDA etc.
379 13852-12 Prosperity Waving Mills V. WAPDA etc.
380 13853-12 Crescent Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
8l 1601,5-12 M/s Pak Lane Towei Ltd..V. WAPDA etc.
382 : 17604-12 M/s Prime Packages Farooqabul Industries v. WAPDA etc.' ' • '
383 22746-11 M/s Asia Spinning Mills v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.
384 13077-11 Kohinoor Textile Mills v. WAPDA
385, 6861-11 Colony Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
386' 28112-12 Phono Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
387: 2735-11 M/s Central Associates v. WAPDA
388 6507-11 M/s Fatima Floor Mills v. WAPDA
389, 11033-11 Shoaib Paper Mills v. WAPDA
390 11034-11 Qaiser Shabbir v. WAPDA
391 17473-11 Nishat Mills v. WAPDA etc.
392: 20976-11 D.S Industries Ltd. etc. v. WAPDA etc. •
393 21400-11 H.A. Haq Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
394 23632-11 M/s Abdul Wasay Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc.
395 23872-11 Sarwar Rubber Industries v. WAPDA etc.
396 24039-11 Zaman Paper & Board Mills v. WAPDA etc.
5 97 . 263,92-11 Muhammad Sadiq 'Weaving Factory etc. v. WAPDA etc.
398 7947,-11 Reliance Weaving Mills v. WAPDA etc.
39.9 6862-11 Fazal Cloth Mill v. WAPDA etc.
400 6866-11 Gulistan Textile v. WAPDA etc.
403 6869-11 Fazal Rehman Fabric vf WAPDA etc.
4.04.., 687,0-11 Ahmad Fine Textile v. WAPDA etc.
405 5004-12 Ch. Saghir Ahmad v. WAPDA
406 5408-12 Muhammad Mansha etc. v. Federation of Pakistan. etc.
407 5459-12 Sher Muhammad ete..v. Chairman WAPDA etc.
408 5517-12 Amzad Javed v. WAPDA etc.
409 5643-12 Syed Asghar Raza Gitdazi v. WAPDA etc.
410 6564-12 Shadab Ice Factory v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
411 5331-12 Muhammad Ali v. F.O.P. etc.
412 5334-12 Abdul Rehman v. WAPDA
Writ Petition No.24076 0f2013.
gOlOt !OWL
413'. .513g!'712 •Noor Muhammad v. F.O.P. etc.
' 414 :53,312 . Maqbool Hussain Shah v. WAPDA
415 . $.14542 Habib .Ur Rehman etc. V. Chief Executive MEPCO etc.
416 534142 Rana Muhammad Farooq v. WAPDA
417, 504342 Zafar Iqbal etc. v. WAPDA etc.
418 . 5254412. • Malik Haq Nawaz v. WAPDA •
419 5261. 12 Muhammad Saleem Shahid v. F.O.P. etc.
420 :7123-12• Melunood Ashraf Khan v. WAPDA
421 7036-12 Muhammad Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
699142 Faisal Asad Textile Mills v. WAPDA
421 6948-12 M/s Fatima Enterprises Lid. v. WAPDA etc.
424 6863-12 Talal Ice Factory v. WAPDA
425 6861-12 Muhammadi Glass Ice Factory v. WAPDA
•426 , 6860-12 Arshad Abbas Ice Factory v. WAPDA
427 6852-12 Muhammad Glass Ice Factory v. WAPDA
• 428, 6850-12 Venus Oil Mills y. WAPDA etc.

6849-12 M/s Mushtaq Enterprises v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
430 6826-12 M/s Solex Agro Industry, Multan v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
431. 6821-12 Punjab Ice Factory v. WAPDA
• ,
432. 6819-12 Jalandher Ice Factory v. WAPDA.
6818=s12 Sohail Ice Factory v. WAPDA
434 680942 Chaudhary Ice Factory v. WAPDA
435 680812 • Ismailia Ice Factory v. WAPDA
436 68.0742 M/s Dastagir Ice Factiry v. WAPDA
437 6806-12 Athar Ice Factory v. WAPDA
•418- W5412 Batala Ice Factory v. WAPDA
439: 681742 Baha-Ud-Din Ice Factory v. WAPDA
''
'Sheikh.Karamat Ice Factory v. WAPDA
441 6814142 Punjab Ice Factory v. WAPDA
442 681342 Jamal Oil Mills v. WAPDA
443 6812-42 Al-Farooq Ice Factory v. WAPDA
. 444 6804,12 Murntaz Ahmad Ice Factory v. WAPDA • ,
445 • 680342 M/s Rahim Industries v. WAPDA
• 446 6802-12
447 6785-12
448. 6704-12
449 6811-12
450 6810-12
Rana Shahid Niaz v. NEPRA etc.
Muhammad Saleem Anjum v. WAPDA
Sahibzada Javed Iqbal v. Ministry Of Power etc.
Abdul Hakeem Floor Mills v. WAPDA
Sadat Ice Factory v. WAPDA
451 6677-12 Mis Asim Qaisar & Co. v. F.O.P. etc.
452 6668-12 M/s Zumar-E-Hira Tours v. WAPDA
453 6801-12 Pir Kabir Flour Mills v. WAPDA ,
4'54 6687-12 Yasrab Ice Factory etc. v. WAPDA etc. .
455 6684-12 Hussain Baldish etc. v. WAPDA
456 668812 M/s K.A. Gases (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA
457 ' 6800,12 Muhammad Naveed Akhtar v. WAPDA
458 •6799-12 Kausar Ice Factory v. WAPDA
459 6798-12 Madina Ice Factory v. WAPDA
460' 6796-12 Malik Mushtaq Ice Factory v. WAPDA
461 6786 -12 M/s Rehbar CNG Station v. WAPDA
462 ,1, 66*12 Fazal-Ur-Reiman Ghee Mills v. WAPDA
463 6664-12 Iftikhar Ahmad Professccr v. WAPDA
464 6663-12 M/s Fraz Fiber v. WAPDA -.4
Schedule-B. 10IPge -4i 1
Writ Petition NO.24076 Of 2013.
(Flying' Cement:Co. Ltd. etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
6628-12 Muhammad Afial etc: v.,F.O.P. etc.

465
M/s Fa yaz Ice FaCtory v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
466 6571-12
6570-12 Nisar Facto v. Federation Of Pakistan
467
Muhammad Hameed v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
468 5315-12
469 5313-12 Umar Hayat v. WAPDA etc.
470 5312-12 Abdul • ayyum v:. WAPDA' .
5307-12 Muhammad Aslam etc, v. WAPDA
471
472 5302-12 Israr.Ahmad v. WAPDA
473 5295-12 Muhammad Azam v. WAPDA.
474 •52.8642 Muhammad Sharif etc. v. WAPDA
475 5285-12 Muhammad Hayat v. WAPDA
3071-11 M/s Al-Qaim Textile Mills v. WAPDA
476
477 6508-11 M/s Nasir Floor Mills v. WAPDA
Aziz Oil Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
:..27691-11
T7221-11 Hameed Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
(Shujaat Ali Khan

Judge
S
Schedule-C
- Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013.
Sr.14 ' Case ,No , `. Titre . , :1-: "'

1 23098-13 Ayesha Spinning Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
2 23474-13 M/s Tariq Steel Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
3 23786-13 Abid Kaleem Spinning Mills etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
4 23798-13 Saman Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
5 23832-13 Khalid Shafique Spinning Mills etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
6 23821-13 Eastern Spitming Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
7 24115-13 Rehmat Wazir Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
8 23771-13 Abdul Khaliq etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
9 23768-13 M/s Lucky Steel v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
10 23794-13 M/s Riaz Bottlers Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
11 23542-13 Malik Muhammad Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
12 23994-13 Ali Akbar Spinning Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
13 24381-13 M/s Harrunad- Industry etcgv. Federation of Pakistan etc.
14 24765-13 M/s Arshad Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
15 24832-13 Sargodha Jute Mills Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
16 24868-13 Arslan Yagoob etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
17 25329-13 Chennab Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
18 25354-13 Chakwal Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
19 24111-13 Sitara Chemicals Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
20 24127-13 Khawaja Spinning Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
21 24192-13 Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
22 23333-13 ICC Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
23 23094-13 Omer Spinning Mills Ltd. etc. v. F.O.P etc.
24 23100-13 Madina Steel Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
25 24067-13 Shaheen Paper and Boeird Industry etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
26 25406-13 Kohinoor Spinning Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
27 24820-13 M/s Abu Balcar Anees Textile etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
28 27515-13 - M/s Mian Steel etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
29 24330-13 M/s Ravi Paper Mills etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
•
30 24677-13 M/s Fatima Enterprises Spinning Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
31 27597-13 M/s Ahmad Textile etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
32 27697-13 Ibrahim Dyeing & Textile Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
33 27856-13 Farooq Fayaz Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
34 27768-13 Muhammad Aslam Steel v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
35 29686-13 U.S. Denim v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
36 29302-13 Popular Food Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
37 30460-13 Munir Power Looms v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
38 1825-14 Ch. Steel Mills etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
39 23863-13 Munir Steel Casting etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
40 2217-13 Amin Afzal v. Federation Of.Pakistan
41 2166-13 M/s Best Way Cement v. Federation of Pakistan
42 2204-13 M/s Lafarge Cement Co. v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
43 2239-13 M/s Texila Cotton Mills etc. v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
44 2253-13 Rizwan Textile Mills v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
45 2495-13 M/s Texila Cotton Mill's etc. v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
46 2531-13 M/s Disposable Utensils Industries v. IESCO etc.
47 29926-13 Haq Brothers etc. v. WAPDA etc.
48 26860-13 Chenab Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Schedule-C.
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013. 2IPage
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd eta Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
:si:#,?!'ciiii'$ , '3F,4 - :.:3100144air,::: ' , -:1-&;i.;.P4'

49 ' 26992-13 M/s Ah and Sons etc. v. Federation of Eakistan etc.
50 26857,13 M/s Nizami Wire Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
51 . 26870-13 Khalid Taj, Taj International Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
52 26868-13 Abdul.Wasay Flour Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
53 26869-13 • Ravi Floor Mills v. Federition of Paldstan etc.
54 . 26715-13 -, M/s Eastern Steel Mills 'etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
55 26866-13 Zulaikha Textile Mills v. Federation of Paldstan etc.
56 26665-1.3 M/s Aryan Steel Industry v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
57 26756-13 Chaudhry Steel Re Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
58 26865-13 Sapphire Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
59. 29792-13 Bilal Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. y,. Federation of Pakistan etc.
60 26856-13 Khawaja Woolen Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
61 26830-13 M/s Rehman Steel Furnace v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
62 26908-13 Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
63 26757-13 MTh Mushtaq Cold Storage v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
64 27333-13 M/s Maple Leaf Cement etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
65 27186-13 Zulfiqar Siddique v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
66 27135-13 Basfa Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
67 27335-13 Shahid Ahmad etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
68 27372-13 Magna Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
69 27258-13 Muhammad Sarwar v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
70 24223-13 M/s Adil Steel Furnace etc. v. F.O.P etc.
71 26492-13 Crescent Sugar Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
72 27504-13 Makkah Steel Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
73 24374-13 Zulaikha Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
74 24080-13 Fast Steel Casting v, Federation of Pakistan etc.
75 26495-13 Shahpur Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
76 24082-13 Ittehad Cheinicals Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
77 24726-13 Haji Muhammad Ali etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
78 24743-13 Saraj Din etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
79 28113-13 Nazeer Paper Board v.iFederation of Pakistan etc.
80 25053-13 Faisal Spinning Company v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
81 27306-13 Afzal v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
82 26890-13 AA Paper (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
83 26717-13 M/s S.J. Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
84 26805-13 Nishat Dairy (Pvt.) Ltd. vi Federation of Pakistan etc.
85 29881-13 Jahangir Hussain etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
86 24365-13 Husnain Spinning Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
87 24587-13 Taymur Spinning Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
88 26595-13 M/s Kamal Steel Re-Rolling Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
89 24459-13 Muhammad Ajmal etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
90 26663-13 M/s Usman Steel Foundry etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
91 24050-13 Shoaib Salman Textile Mills etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
92 27065-13 M/s Khalid Siraj Textile Mills etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
93 27020-13 M/s Al Madina Steel Furnace v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
94 27091-13 M/s Ashraf Steel v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
95 26716-13 Qadri Brother (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
96 27068-13 Sajid Qayum v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
97 27095-13 M/s Zia Brothers v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
98 27052-13 Lucky Packaging Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
99 24574-13 A.H.M Enterprises v. 'Federation of Pakistan etc.
100 23729-13 Shamas Textile Mills etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc. 1
Schedule-C. 3IP a g e
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2Q13.
` (Flying Cement Co. Ltd. etc. Versus Govt. of Pakista'n etc.)
- Sr:# Oise
101 27308-13 Bilal Fibers Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Amin Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. Federation•of Pakistan etc.
102 26909-13
103 26765-13 Muhammad Faroocr v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Kamalia Steel Furnace etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
104 26893-13
105 27092-13 M/s Good Luck Flour Mills 41. Federation of Pakistan etc. '
106 27093-13 M/s Adil Rice Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
107 24536-13 M/s Na Steel Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
108 26185-13 Kw. Shahbaz Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Monnoo Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
109 26669-13
110 26899-13 Nauman Shakeel v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
111 13213-13 Phono Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
112 24363-13 Muhammad Jawaid Sharif etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
113 26694-13 M/s Lucky Steel Foundry (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
114 26766-13 M/s Malik & Sons etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
115 28755-13 M/s Rizwan Steel Furnace v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
116 29358-13 M/s Roshan Steel Furnace v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
117 23867-13 Steel Innovators (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Siddique Iron Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
118 23969-13
119 245-13 Insaf Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
120 252-13 M/s Ali Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
121 23908-13 Idrees Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
122 23955-13 M/s Shoaib Steel Mills v. Federation of Pakistan.
123 26613-13 Arsam Pulp and Paper Board Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(Shujaat Ali Khan)

Judge
•
W rit
(Flying Cement Co., Ltd. etc. Versus akistan etp,.)
.,
1g #4100.4WR41.7.,..
. ., . mi. op.
Ilyag,thatlia:.and .,R.O.
11161-1 I .. M/s • Sitara Chemical v. WAPDA etc.
..
Advocates. ,
, ..
- ' • IvI/s .Mian Mebtadod414s '
2 - .11162-11 Gulshan. Spinning v. WAPDA etc. . . , -- . ' -,--.--..i '
Ms. koohi Sttlek...Ai0Cit `'..-
Mian'Mehni6o ',.'‘ '. -

3 11163-11 Gulshan Weaving v. WAPDA etc. Iviis. - ' . d' ` '
Ms. Roohi -St4e1i4Advcca T"
Gulistan Textile Mills v. WAPDA .M/s Mian.Mainitied asliid '

4. 11164-11 .
etc. .M& R-OOhi ,:g4in4A.' Vdeites:4; '
-
M/ s Mian.Mehmood.i. :lan
5 11165-11 Gulshan Spinning v. WAPDA etc. ... MI .'..; ,.::
-- - - .; -- ' -
'Ms..4c.ocihialelia,-kaik.oCateS":"'
• s-kanMehrdOod; ''' 'inn
6 11166-11 Colony Industries v. WAPDA etc. - - - ' - -': '-', r,
-"Ms. Rciolii Soleli4Ael..vota
r 1;
'
Gulistan Spinning Mills v. WAPDA ". M/S'..Mian'Me bo ''' . '
7 11167-11
etc. .Ms...R
. dohl S.' e ,Advocat es:,:
Maufair Spinning Ltd. v: WAPDA M/StMitin•Me .do .,';', ' 1tn
8 ' 11517-11
etc. :Ms.'.11.6olli
.- ...S4hai ,4Cli.4.4tes
'M/s. Mian Merini6o ' a;- an

9 11518-11 Ehsan Raiwind Mills v. WAPDA etc. . -• ,--- ' - • -• 3 %•
d -- 1 ,Ms..-Itocihi • Saleha.; Ai vacates -',
. ,.
10 13890-11 North Star Textile v. WAPDA etc. Mis:Mi.4416- -. Ci° an

Ms.ICiOhl ' S pidha4- AkIiVoddte,s.,- .16.. - '
M/s Quality Textile Mills Ltd. v. .M/S-..Miari:Merini'pod;': ashid td r,,
11 15290-11
WAPDA etc.. mssg-cphiis.eiiM• •e . 4.- ...y„c.• a es ' .,
..
s ' Ati e 11 ''''
12 16805-11 Itehad Chemical LW.- v'. WAPDA eic.,'-`, • ' - •
s.t,keiCilii:Sitfebk 40,04tkif 7
M/s Shpaib Steel Mills v. WAPDA ' - 'iM/sIVIi4ii ■
.-5ei.Clf
e '' ' ''''
13 16806-11 - • 3' '
etc. . • Ms..-:0.-baf„Salehi. . ,ca,tes, if y.
Idrees Textile Mills 'Ltd. v. WAPDA ,I'M/s1/11atiMe '0.0 '',...'"' '' g
, tes. 4
14 16807-11
etc. i' -. .--Ms.;;;RdiiiiiiS6.18b&"
), iio'■ '
Premier Papers Mills Ltd. v. M/S;Mlan:IVIe hii0a4

T . ' s ; ,
15 16808-11 '1 -
WAPDA etc. . Ms.`Roohi Saleha; 140eates' 4 1
Mandiali Paper (Pvt.) Ltd. v. cllhde

l.M/sIvIian-Me1O'Ciri
,x , : '' -,
.. '
16 16809-11
WAPDA etc. .4dtitv:
IVIs..Rochi'sal..1.4iH:'-': '
,. IsAisMiAmmaiiid 4, d 41 'I.
17 16810-11 M/s AzifIndustires v.* APDA. etc.' ' - ',
Ms. '..Rbohi, Sliliai, A4V.O,cof s ,
M/s Batala Steel' Mills v. WAPDA M/&Mian'MehttioOdi ,

.,,..
18 16811-11
etc. Ms.:R.00hi Saleha.,- Adc0Catel ' :-
M/s Sufi Steel Industires v. WAPDA M/sMian MehmoOdR4ShicV . '
19 16812-11
etc. Ms. Roohi SalehkAcIVOCates ' -'•
M/s Capital Steel Mills. v. WAPDA IvI/s.Mian MehinoOct:124ihicrtin i

20 16813-11 i
etc. Ms. Roohi Seleha-;,AaVii64te"
M/sMia,n Mehinard,;-, '''' 4 ,: ..
16814-11 Bashir Sons v. WAPDA etc. •(
21 1,
Ms..R4Ohi, SLelik-, v44teg vt .i,s- f
, WS '
anMeadd ' ail '
NTP Gelatine (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA - ' • '-' . . 0. . -q.t., =
22 16891-11
Ms.'R.ciOhi'Salehh;, dVOcates. - .,
M/s Kareem Steel Industry v. M/s,M.ati Meli no6 & '. an' '
.. . •
23 16892-11
WAPDA :Ms'adohi.Saleha;AdvoCate -
M/sMian Mehttioocl‘, ' '

24 16893-11 Quetta Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.. , .:,- : . t.
- ..., ,... :: ;-:' ',...1.-3,
: dv cat es:
o
....
. -
-o.,
,
Ms.,ROolu Saleha,....A
Sheikhupura Textile Mills Ltd. v. .--. Mr.tiSSainf

li Ibrahlin:i- '' .r'
25 16818-11
Govt. of Pakistan etc. ''AdVnete. -:
Sohail Textile Mills Ltd. v., Govt. of i '.:Mrj.Hif.§§aitt

,. .. ,. „ .
Ib' t:AhimIvr.
.., - ,.
2 li. '
26 16822-11 .4. ,
the Pakistan and others ::AdVOcite. „
Schedule-A:.
Writ Petition No.24,076 Of 2013.
E.P:C.T. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Govt. of the

27 •6821-11 ' Pakistan and others .
Chiniot Textile Mills Ltd. v.. Govt. of Mr, Hussain Ibrahim MdliornntA4
28 16820.-11 the Pakistan and others Advocate.
Ayesha Spinning Mills Ltd. v..Gpvt. Mr. Hussain Ibriihket Migianractr''
29 16819-11 of the Pakistan and others Advocate.
East Pakistan Chrome Tannery Ltd. Mr. Hussain Ibrahim Mthammicl.
30 16823-11 v. Govt: of the Pakistan and others Advocate.
M/s Ehsan Cotton Products Ltd. v. M/s Mian Mehmood RaShid and
31 16660-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha,-AdvOiates.
WAPDA etc.
M/s Taj International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
32 1 6661-.1 1 • WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdvoCates.
M/s Madina Steel Industries v. M/s Mian. MelmiPod Rashid and
33 16662-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVdcates.
Sapphire Textile Mills Ltd. v. M/s Mian Mehmood RaShid-atid
34 16957-11 WAPDA, etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates;
Reliance Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. M/s Mian Mehrnood Rashid and-
3.5, . 16958-11 v. WAPDA, etc.. • Ms. Roohi Saleha; Adyncates.
M/s Mian Mehniood RiShid and
36 17081-11 Yousaf Weaving v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
M/s Mian Mehrriood-R4Slaidand
37 17082-11 Kamalia Steel v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Indus Dyeing & Manufacturing M/s Mian Mehmood Rashidand
38 17083-11 Company Ltd. v. WAPDA, etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advodates.
Fatima Enterprises Ltd. v. WAPDA, M/s Mian Mehrnoocl Rashid and
39 17084-11 etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha; Advocates.
Sunrays Textile Mills Ltd. v. M/s Mian MelaMood Rashid and
40 17085-11 WAPDA, etc. Ms. Roobi Saleha, Adv.aCates.
41 16992-11 Sajid Paper Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
42 17146-11 M/s Fine Steel etc. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,-AdvoC - ates:
Habib Haseeb Spinning Mills v. M/s Mian MehMoodkaShid and.
43 17377-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roolil Saleha, -A:dVoCates.
M/s Ali Riasat Steel Industries v. M/s Mian Mehinciod Rashid and
44 17378-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,-AdvOcates.
Mr. Khurram Shahbazttutt
45 17172-11 M/s Mazhar Steel v. WAPDA etc. Advocate.
• 46
47
17472-11
17530-11
Azgard 9 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
Mian Muhammad Yaseen Saeed v.
WAPDA etc. •
Muhammad Saeed Ch. v. WAPDA
MTh Mian Mehmood Rashid and
Ms. Roohi Salelia, AdVOCates.
Mr. Hafeez ur RehmanC
Advocate
Mr. Hafeez ur Rehmat Ch:
48 17531-11 Advocate
etc.
Ch. Muhammad Javaid v. WAPDA Mr. Hafeez ur Rahman Ch:
49 17532-11 etc. Advocate
Ayaz Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA Nemo.
50 17533-11 etc.
17536-11 Hajra Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
51
Khalid Shafique Spinning v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
52 17877-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Achrbeatei.
M/s Mian Mehinood Rashid and
53 17878-11 Nishat Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,AdvoCates.
Masood Spinning Mills v ,. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehmood Ras,id and
54 17887-11 Ms. Roohi Saleba, Advdea'tes.
etc.
Mahmood Textile Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehinood RaSlaid and
55 17886-11 etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advo6ated'..'
•
chedule-A.
Writ PettitOn 1.s1.9.2.4076 Of2.01.3.
(Flying Cement Co 4tdirete..:Kersu.s. Govt. of Pakistan etc
Masood Fabrics v. WAPDA etc. ,A4 4.1iiteC(s.P •

M/s Mian Mel*O4' r; :44441
Azgard Nine Ltd. V. WAPDA etc. Ws. Roollf:Salolik44465dates:!.,
11/s Mian
1■
Roorni Fabrics Ltd. v. WAPDA etc._ Ms. Roohi Saleha,.AapCate.
M/s Rehmat Nazir Rayon v. Nemo.
17911-11 WAPDA etc.
Superior Textile Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mebmood Ikashid.$4 j. •
18360-11 etc. Ms. Roohi
M/s MiahMelinitiOd:.110hid44C:-
18361-11 Hira Terry Mills v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roehi:Satelia;'AdOCate.
Sargodha Spinning Mills v. WAPDA M/s MiahMehttoOd g4shidand
18362-11 etc. • Ms. ROOhi SalelikAdiioCateS.-
18457-11 Siara Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA Nemo.
M/s Malik Board & Power Industries Mr. Tapir Zia Mahar Advocate
18565-11 Pvt. Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd. M/s Mian MehMoOd Rashid and ^):
18149-11 v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Salehar AdVocateS.-
M/s Mian Mehthood shid, and
18148-11 Shahzad Textile v. WAPDA etc. Roohi Salehar AdV,Ocates:,
Ghazi Fabrics International Ltd. v.
18418-11 WAPDA
18566-11 M. Zahid, Pervaiz Steel v. WAPDA Nemo.
Shalimar Steel Re-Rolling Mills
18630-11 (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA
Secretary Model Town Cooperative
18805-11 Society v. WAPDA etc.
SN Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v.
18714-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Afaq & Danyal Steel Industries Mr. ZUlqarnain. amidMvo
18646-11 v. WAPDA etc. ., • •
18647-11 M/s JP Industries v. WAPDA etc. Mr

Anmol Engineering Works v. Mr. ZulciFirnaiti HamidAdVocate.-..,-
18648-11 WAPDA etc.
Malik Steel Re-Rol mg Mills v.
75 18649-11 WAPDA etc.
76 18650-11 M/s Tariq Steel v. WAPDA etc.

Mr. Zulqarnaih Hamid Advocate:
.
77 18651-11
Mr. Zulqamaiti Hamid Advocate
78 18652-11 M/s Ali Enterprises v. WAPDA etc.
Mr. Ziliqarnairi HamidAdvoca.te:
79 18653-11 M/s Paramount v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Beco Steel Re-Rolling Mills Mr. Zulqarnain-Hamid Advocate.
18654-11 (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Chaudhry Steel Re-Rolling Mills
18655-11 v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Chaudhry Steel Re-Rolling Mills Mr.clar14171c1004t
Pak- Kuwait Textile etc. v. WAPDA M/sikan MehMO HOtl:
18679-11 etc.
18680-11 New City Steel etc. v. WAPDA etc.
18681-11 Kamran Steel etc. v. WAPDA etc.

Schedule-A. 4113.0
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd • etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
‘4740,172g:
M/s Mian MehmoodMas
86 18682-11 Afco Metals etc. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. .Roohi Saleha, AdVodates.
M/s Mian MehmoocRashdand
87 • 18683-11 Spincot Textile etc. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,-.MybeatesL
New Shalimar Steel etc. v. WAPDA Mis Mian MOtii6641'14§4i':and
88 18684-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha, amOba
etc.
89 18875-11 M/s Chenab Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
90 18876-11 M/s Pak China v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Mian MehmoodRashid'and
91 1.8514-11 Arain Fibers Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Sgeha, Advocates: :
M/s Mian MelamoOdiRa.shidand
92. 18515-11 Suleman Spinning Mills N;'. WAPDA Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates..
Rahim Bakhsh Textile Mills. v. M/s Mian MelamooOtashicVand
93 18516-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVocates..
WAPDA
M/s Mien MelamoodRa.shid'ind
94 18517-11 Arain Mills v. WAPDA Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates..
95 18518-11 Al-Hamd Corp: v. WAPI5A. etc. Mr. Mustafa Katnal.AdvoCate.
M/s Mian Mehreoo&Rashicl and
96 18519-11 Arain Textile v. WAPDA.etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates:
Ahmad Hassan Textile Mills Ltd. v. M/s:Mian Mehmoo&RashicLand
97 18532-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha;"Aktsideates.
Ellcot Spinning Mills Ltd., etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmoo 'Rashid and
98 18750-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Adiocates.'
M/s Fiber Dyeing (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
99 18724-11
WAPDA, etc.
M/s Cool Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
100 18660-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Shaheen Paper and Board Nemo.
101 18662-11 Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Muhammadi Paper and Board Nemo.
102 18663-11 Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v.' WAPDA etc.
M/s New Modern Steel Industries v. Mr. Zulqarnainlianaid'Advocate.
103 18661-11 WAPDA etc.
104 18667-11 M/s Siddique Sons v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
105 18668-11 M/s Al-Riaz v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
106 18669-11 M/s Al-Riaz v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
107 18670-11 M/s Sharmaine v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s King Embroidery v. WAPDA Nemo.
108 18671-11 etc.
109 18733-11 M/s HK Steel Mills v. WAPDA, etc. Mr. Zulqamaiia Hamid Advocate
M/s Imdad Hussain Re-Rolling Mills Mr. Zulqarnain Haruki Advdcate
110 18731-11 v: WAPDA, etc.
Barkat Textile Mills etc. v. WAPDA. Mr. Mustafa Kamal Advocate
111 18807-11 etc.
112 18854-11 Fine Gas Co. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha; AdVocates.. -:
M/s Mian Mehmood Raphidiand
113 18855-11 Al Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,,Advdcates..
M/s Mian Mehmood1shtd and;
114 18856-11 Shan Steel v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha41/406cates:
M/s Mian MehmoOcI14shidiand
115 18857-11 Abu Bakar Textile v. WAPDA etc. • Ms. Roohi Saleha,AdWoctitea.
M/i Mian 1\itehmood:f4shid1.
p4 d
116 18858-11 Ayesha Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms: Roohi.Sgeha, Advdcats^.
Acro Spinning & Weaving v. M/s Mian 4hidfiand
117 19085-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No.29076.01: 2013.
(Flying Cement Co: Ltd. eta Versus Govt. of Pakistan eta).'
IV: Is tood4
Sally Textile Mills v. WAPDA, etc. s. ROPE Saleha, kciv,Veiiek
M/s MianMehmood Ra.shid,sh
19086-11 -.Ms. Roohi Sale
M/s Mian Mel*id454:;
19087-11 .. Imperial Textile v. WAPDA Ms. Roohi
M/s Mian /vIeliMoodi*hid444
19088.11 Dg Khan Cement v. WAPDA etc, ;Ms. Roohi Saleh.
19270-11 Zahid Jee. Textile v. WAPDA Nemo.
M/s Mian Mehinood Rg.shichuid:i
19237-11 Diamond Fabrics v. WAPDA Ms. Roohi Sal AegiCates....
Wisal Kemal Fabrics Ltd. v. M/s MianMehrhoOd Rashidi,aud
19238-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Sale.h. .Advocates:
Ali Akbar Spinning Mills v. M/s Mian Melirriobd 4Shidyalid !
19239-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha; AdVocates.. '
M/s Ali Akbar Textile v. WAPDA
19274-11 etc.
19139-11 Bilal Textile v..WAPDA etc.
19140-11 Sangam Steel v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
18935-11 M/s City Steel UAE v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Mian Mehinood
19367-11 Service Industries v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Adiopatei;,
City Tower Management v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehinood
19369-11 etc. Ms. RiDohi Saleha,
Blessed Textile Mills etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood RAShid-andj
19371-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advoeaies.
M/s Mian MehMOod Rashid
19373-11 Ms. Roohi Satan', ActVocCates:0
M/s Mian Meh nood`Raslud
19375-11 Amin Textile . Mills v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roobi Satolik Adiroea
M/s Maqbool Textile Mills v. Mr. Azliar SiddiqUe=
19387-11 . WAPDA etc.
M/s Allah Wassaya Textile Mills v.
WAPDA etc.
M/s Ma. bool Textile v. WAPDA Nemo.
19386-11
M/s Allah Wassya Textile Mills v. Nemo.
19388-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Allah Wasaya Mills v. WAPDA
19390-11 etc.
M/s Mian Mehmood Rahjdr,
19372-11 Blessed Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha .Advocates.:
M/s Mian Mehmood RisAdfand
19374-11 Shahtaj Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha AdVo' ales.;
Faisal Spinning Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian MehmoodRaghid,and
19368-11 Ms. Roohi Saletr; :Advocates.
etc. and
Bhanero Textile Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mellinood
19370-11 Ms. Roohi Saleh ,
etc.
M/s Mehmooda MqbooP Mills v.
19389-11 WAPDA
Nishat Chunian Ltd. etc. v. Govt. Of,
19642-11 Pakistan etc.
M/s Mien Mehmood
19633-11 Samin Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi sale AbO:iites;:
19634-11 Sajjad Textile v. WAPDA etc. iA44C4

M/s Mian MehMobott
19635-11 Ms. kO",Shi
Schedule-A.
dirdiEgurc
anMei:mood
149 20506-11 M/s Habib Steel v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi SaIeha., AVdates.
i.
150 19365-11 .Wahla Cold Storage v. WAPDA•ete Nemo.

Us DenimMills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Govt. Mr. M.A. Hameed A.Wan Ad Cate.:
151 19523-11
Of Pakistan etc.
. .
M/s Mushtaq Cold Storage v. Nemo.
152 19726:11
WAPDA etc.
M/s Maple Leaf Cement Factory v. Mr. Muhammad Hussain Chotiya
153. 19708-11 Advocate. .
WAPDA etc.
M/s Jamal Steel Mills Ltd. v. M/s Mian Mehrnood hidand
154 19892-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advbcates.
WAPDA etc.
Tayyab Textile Mills etc. v. WAPDA
155 20074-11 Nemo.
etc.
Aashir Imran Spinning Mills v. Nemo.
15.6 20405-11
WAPDA etc.
M/s Mandi Cold Storage etc. v. Nemo.
157 20100-11
WAPDA etc.
Akram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA Barrister Ahmed Parvez Advocate.
158 20469-11
etc.
Mr. Hafeez urRehman- Ch.
159 20512-11 M/s Wali Oil Mills v. WAPDA Advocate
M/s Nasira Weaving Mills v.,. Mr. Khurram Shahb413titt
160 20744-11 Advocate.
WAPDA
161 20881-11 Muhammad Farooq v. WAPDA Nemo.
Ehsan Younas & Brothers etc. v. Nemo.
162 21042-11 Govt. of Pakistan etc.
163 20585-11 Haidery Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Baba Fareed Steel v. WAPDA Nemo.
164 20566-11
etc.
M/s Hassan Spirmin v. WAPDA Nemo.
165 20975-11
etc.
166 20937-11 M/s Raza Molding v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
167 21087-11 M/s A.H. Steel Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
168 21301-11 Shaukat Ali v. WAPDA etc. 'Nemo.
169 21302-11 Imran Ahmad v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Mian Mehrnood:Rashid.and
170 21447-11 I.C.C. Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,-..AdVocatea:
M/s Mian MelamoodiRObidancl
171 21448-11 Anmol Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.-
Shoaib Salman Textile v. WAPDA M/s Mian MehmoodRashid -and
172 21449-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVoCates:
etc.
Farooq Spinning Mills etc. v. Nemo.
173 21166-11 WAPDA etc. •
174 21184-11 Abid Kaleem v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Husain Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA Mr. Azhar Siddique Advocate:.
175 21120-11
etc.
M/s Husain Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA Mr. Azhar Siddique AcIVocate.
176 21121-11
etc.
M/s Naseen Enterprises (rivt.) Ltd. v. Mr. Azhar Siddique AdVocate.
177 21122-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Husain Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA Mr. Azhar Siddique AdVocate:
178 21123-11
etc.
Neelibar Textile Mills v. Federation
179 21254-11 Nemo.
of Pakistan etc.
M/s Fawad Textile Mills v. WAPDA Mr. Azhar Siddique AdVoca.tk..,
180 21187-11
etc.
PB IndustrialIstate etc. v. WAPDA,..: :A3hrrister AhmecE,Parv.0*.dVb:cate
182 21635-11
etc:
183 22097-11 M/s Runafil. Ltd. v. WAPDA,etc. Nemo.
M/s Rupali Polyester Ltd. etc. V. Nemo.
184 22098-11 WAPDA etc.
Shahab Dyeing & Processing Mills Nemo.
185 22489-11 . v. WAPDA etc.
Taymur Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Nemo.
:186 22459-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Zenotex (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA Nemo.
187 22679-11
etc.
Shahraj Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
188 22680-1.1 WAPDA etc.
S.N. Textile Mills etc. v. Govt. Of Nemo
189 22811-11 Pakistan etc.
M/s Badami B4gh Steel v. WAPDA Mr. FiaZ Ahmad KhadBaloch
190 23003-11 Advocate.
etc.
M/s Yummy Milk Product Private Nemo.
191 22897-11 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Shafi Reso Chem v. WAPDA Ch. Iratiaz Ahmdd Adi).6cate.
192 23155-11 etc.
M/s Siddique Leather Works v. Ch. Imtiaz AhMad Adikiatite.
193 23154-11 WAPDA etc.
All Haq Spinning Mills Ltd,. v. Mr. IyAlharnmE.i4,
194 23421-11 WAPDA etc. Ms..Mehriaz m0,0=4
M/s noo&R
195 23523-11 Bashir Cotton Mills v. WAPDA etc.., Ms. koohi.SalehaiA
Model Steel Industries v. WAPDA M/s MiinMehnitiOd 31idji0
196 23524-11 etc. Ms. RoOhi'Saltha,AckyZ)eiiiii,.
M/s Tanveer Spinning v. WAPDA Mr. Ivlustafa ari al yoga
197 23489-11 etc.
Tanveer Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mr. Mustafa ICa*al
198 23490-11 WAPDA etc.
Ravi Spinning Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA Mr. Mustafa K4Mal- vbcitte.
199 23491-11 etc.
M/s Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
200 23493-11 WAPDA etc. •
New Horizon Spinning (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
201 23494-11 WAPDA etc.
Khawaja Shahbaz Ahmad v. Nemo.
202 23496-11 WAPDA etc.
S.K. Cotton Waste Factory v. Govt. Nemo.
203 23395-11 Of Pakistan etc.
M/s First Treet Manufacturing Nemo.
204 22899-11 Modraba v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Treet Corporation Ltd. v. Nemo.
205 22898-11 WAPDA etc.
New Age Cables (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Govt. Nemb.
206 22968-11 Of Pakistan etc.
Burraq Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
207 23238-11 Govt. Of Pakistan etc. j.
M/s Precision'Forging (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nert1P;
208 23202-11 WAPDA etc.
209 23258-11 A.H. Steel v. WAPDA etc. Nemo..
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No.24076 Of2013.
(Plxingaement Co. 1,td;etd. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.).
eptp, 5
Cgt rl's.
IMMET;! .,.-' is,..- ,taLle...=bedo.6.■ `" ('t:61'",
Muhammad Ayub Sarwar v. -
210. 23871-11 . emo.
WAPDA etc.
211 23865-11 Ijaz Hussain v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
Waqar Younas Re-Rolling Mills v. -
212 238.69-11 Nemo. .
WAPDA etc.
213 23867-11 '. ' Muhammad Riaz v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
214 23621-1.1 M/s Madni Steel v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Arsam Pulp & Paper Board v,. Mr. Khurram Shahbaz Butt
215 23631-11 . Advocate.
WAPDA etc.
M/s Qadria Board Mills v. WAPDA Mr. Khurram Shahbaz Butt
216 23627-11 1
Advocate.
etc.
Fahad Javaid Spinning Mills etc. v.
217 23721-11 Nemo.
WAPDA etc.
218 23877-1,1 Nasir Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
New Punjab Flour Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
219 23879-11
etc.
Haroon Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
220 23858-11
WAPDA etc. .
221 23832-11 Chakwal Textile v. WAPDA etc. Mr. Mustafa Kamal Advocate.
M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid.and
222 23660-11 A.A. Spinning v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advikates.
Mr. Mustafa Karnal Aaitocate. •
M/s Mian Mehinood Rashid and
223 24065-11 M/s Best Export v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVocates.
M/s Pioneer Cement Ltd. v. WAPDA Nemo.
224 23626-11
etc.
225 23880-11 Tayyaba Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
226 23881-11 Rehmat Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
227 23882-11 Madina Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
228 23866-11 Abdul Jabbar v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
229 23868-11 Aurangzeb v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
Flying Board & Paper v. WAPDA Nemo.
230 24046-11
etc.
Mina Abdul Karim etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
231 24075-11
etc.
Khalid Nazir Spinning Mills etc. v. Nemo.
232 24021-11 Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
Mm/S. Ravi Flour Mills Lahopt v. Mr. Khurram ShalabarBhtt
233 23630-11 WAPDA etc. Advocate.
234 24126-11 A.F. Steel Rerolling v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
Amir Asim Steel Rerolling v. Nemo.
235 24127-11 WAPDA etc.
Asim Wire & Nut Bolt v. WAPDA Nemo.
236 24128-11 etc.
Muhammad Siddique v. WAPDA Nemo.
237 23870-11 etc.
238 23862-11 Naziran Bibi v. WAPDA etc. Nemo. ,
Nemo. . •
239 23878-11 Data Flour Mills v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Flying Paper Industries v. Nemo.
240 24036-11 WAPDA etc.
241 24044-11 Flying Cement Co. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s MLW Industries (Ht.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
242 24197-11 WAPDA etc.
e M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid wict
243 23827-11 Bilal Fibers v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, A.chkOicrit.csf "
.Schedule-4. .
Writ' etition No:2476:0f
. . ..
(Flying Cemen(,Co:::ya,:ete:,:,Kersu.s. Govt. of Pokis.prti,et.O:
• • -•
Mulianiniad Saee&etc. v. WAPDA

etc.
Mis H.A.R. Textile Mills v. WAPDA, Nemo.
etc. • , '
Muhanuriadtsnian v. WAPDA; etc.:
24024-11 ' Hassan Foundries v. WAPDketc.
Muhammad Rizwan M.uhainthad
23864-11 REimi.an v. WAPDA etc.
R.G.M. Weaving Factory etc. v.
241.51-11 Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
Ghulam Rasool Steel Furnace v.
23863-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Ibrahim Steel Casting & others
24435-11 v. WAPDA etc. M/s Mian MehMood14.shid and
KohinoOr Spinning Mills v. WAPDA
24363-11 Ms. Roohi Salehai,A0.0eates..
etc. Mr. Zalaid AslarriMaliki;Adviica(e.
24819-11 M/s Fazal Sons v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Aftab Sons Match Ind. v.
24829-11 WAPDA etc.
Al-Rehman Industries v. WAPDA
etc.
24821-11 M/s Aftab Sons v. WAPDA etc.
Pakistan Flour Mills Association v. -Nemo.
24330-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Mohid Industries v. WAPDA Nemo.
25267-11 etc. •
Abdul Rashid Weaving Mills etc. v. NemO.•
25249-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Nizami Wire Industries v. Nemo.
25594-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Mian MebmoOd d amt
25699-11
25599-11 M/s Royal Polytex Industries (Pvt.)
Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
Chiragh Textile Mills v. WAPDA
25656-11 etc.
M/s Shaheen Stone Grinding
26081-11 Industries v. WAPDA etc.
Cool Point Industries v. WAPDA
25665-11 etc.
M/s Latif Steel Furnace v. WAPDA Nemo.
25714-11 etc,
M/s Pakistan Vinyl Industries v.
25702-11 WAPDA etc. •
M/s Unexo Labs (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
25798-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Al-Karm Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.
M/s Usman Cotton Factory (Pvt.) Nemo.
25796-11 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
Al-Madina Steel Mills etc.iv.
25879-11 WAPDA etc.
:Ks Salit
25811-11 Naiieed,AdvdCate:
Nano:
25805-11
Schedule-A
Writ Petition No.24076 012013.
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd: Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.
,f QR.11,
MagEr ,_„ ..,.a.,,.s....
... Mis.Rahim Enterprises v., WAPDA
274 25849-11 Nemo
e tc. I
Mis Mian Mehmood Rashid and
275 25901-11 Ch. Azam Ali v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi SalehkAtbk - 4tei.7 '' '
M/s Yasir. Ikram Rice Food Farm etc:- Nemo. r.
276. 26033-11 I
v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Angora Textile Ltd. v. WAPDA .
277 25867-11 Nemo. ,
etc.
M/s Rehan Enterprises v. Govt. Of
278 26101-11 • Palustan etc. Nemo. •
Tabish Steel Furnace v. WAPDA Mr. Shahzad Ahmad Diiirani
279 25924-11 Advocate.
etc. 1 -
M/s Al Badar Engineering v. Nemo.
280 25836-11
WAPDA etc.
281 26050-1.1 M/s Miraj Din Steel v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
Chenab Rice Mills etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
282 25712-11
etc.
M/s Azhar Corporation (Pvti) Ltd. v. Nemo.
283 26391-11 WAPDA etc. •
Lessee Of Lasani Cold Storage Nemo.
284 25981-11 Lahore v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Anmol Paper Mills v. WAPDA Mr. Shahzad Ahmad Duirani,
285 26056-11 Advocate.
etc.
Naveed Agencies etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
286 26058-11 etc.
M/s Shaheen Grinding Industries v. Nemo.
287 26082-11
WAPDA etc.
288 26102-11 Diamond Tyres Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
289 26224-11 Kashif Melunood v. WAPDA etc. Nemb.
M/s Sharjeel Ijaz and Adtan
290 26379-11 M/s Aslam Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ahmad, Advocates.
Babur Sher CNG etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
291 26526-11 etc.
Ghous Fibers v. Government of Nemo.
Muhammad Akram etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
293 26530-11 etc. .
M/s S.J. Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Nemo.
294 26139-11 WAPDA etc. •,
M/s Mian Mebmood Rashid and
295 26361-11 Maqbool Usman v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVOCates., :'
Shakargang Mills Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid.nd::
296 26179-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha.,-AcivOCates.
M/s Mian Mehmood RaShid'and
297 26431-11 Arzoo Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdvoCites.
M/s C.A Textile Mills v. WAPDA Mian Muhammad Hussairi‘Chotiya.
298 26378-11 etc. Advocate. :
M/s Mian MehMood RaShid and
299 26506-11 AAA Doublers Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,,Advaattei.. „
M/s Mian MehinoOd Rasudaad's
300 26508-11 Facto Cement v. WAPDA etc. ,
Ms. Roohi Saleha, .AdiragteS. ),
M/s Three Star Hosiery Mills v. Nemo. ,
301 26510-11 WAPDA etc. •
Umar Ijaz Textile etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
302 26768-11
etc.
303 26750-11 Umair Tariq BLitt v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
304 26586-11 Tariq Nisar v. WAPDA etc. Nemo. , _A_
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition Nii24076 Of 2013.
(Flying.Cement:co. Lrd etc. ; Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.
4*.'11,14ii14, 4'tli. _ , ,,
M/s Ra5que Spinning Mills v."- 014eltaiibcV SOU ''
305 26688-11 , Ms. RoohilSalelia, Aii, tIcii4t:
WAPDA etc.
M/s Makka Cold;Storage.etc. v. Nemo.
306 26602-11 ' a
WAPDA etc.
MuhamMad'Shoib etc. v.. WAPDA ' 'Nemo.
307 2688§-11 .
etc. •
M/s Mien IvIehtiood , and
308 26943-11 M/s Malees Cafe v. WAPDA Ms. Roohi Saleha, AditOetiiii.. '
M/s Dandot Cement Co. etc. v. Nemo.
309 26862-11. WAPDA etc.
M/s Shahbaz Garments (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
310 26692-11 WAPDA. etc.
M/s Mushtaq Enterprises v. WAPDA M/s Sharjeelijaz:and Aiinart,
311 26736-11 Ahmad, Advocates.
etc.
Kausar Processing Industries v. M/s Khurram SbabbaZi!13-utt and ,
312 26519-11 WAPDA etc. MirzaBilal Zafar AdvOCates.
Jan Muhammad Cold Storage v. Nemo. .:.
313 26804-11 WAPDA etc. '
M/s Yasmin Weaving v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehmood - hicLabil
314 26908-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha,;AOOiate§.;.
etc.
Arfeen Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. V. . Nemo.
315 26962-11 G.O.P etc.
M/s Jeea Textile Mills v. WAPDA Mr. Khurram Shahbaz-T: 13 rit ,,
Butt
316 27063-11 etc. Advocate.
Lalazar Spinning Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
317 27017-11 etc. -. - '
318 27108-11 Sayyed Engineers v. WAPDA etc. Nenio.' t . -
M/s Zamindar Cherdicals,v. Nemo.
319 27109-11 WAPDA etc. •
320 27107-11 Sayyed Stationary v. WAPDA etc. Nemo. -L
M/s Pioneer Board Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
321 26808-11 etc.
• 1.1 IT
s
....• .....
er o v.
322 26809-11 Nemo.
--
WAPDA etc.
Madina Enterprises etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
323 26525-11 etc.
Muhammad Shakeel Weaving Nemo::;
324 26601-11 Factory etc. v. WAPDA etc.
Kohinoor Textile Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
325' 27755-11 etc.
M/s Al-Quraish Paper Industries Mr. Abdul Waheed •
326 27745-11 (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA btc. Advocate.
M/s Al-Quraish Pet Bottles (Pvt.) Mr. Abdul Waheed Habib .
327 27744-11 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Advocate.
M/s Lasani Fiber Industries (Pvt.) Mr. Abdul Waheed Habib!
328 27831-11 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Advodate.
329 28031-11 Nauman Shakil etc. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
330 27989-11 Insaf Plastic etc. v. WAPDA etc.
331 28226-11 Khalid Petroleum v. WAPDA etc. Nemo. -
White Pearl Rice Mills Ltd. v. Nenio.
332 28339-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Combine' Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ch. Initiaz Alimad
333 28453-11 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
Muhammad Ijaz Alam v. WAPDA NeniO.
334 28361-11 etc.
M/s Mirza Youths Foundry etc. v.
335 28611-11 WAPDA etc.
Schedule-A:
Writ. Petition No.24076 .0f2013. 12 P a: g .e
(FlyingGement Co, 1*1.-'etc. Versus Govt. off akistan eta)
336 28867-11 MA Polymar v. WAPDA etc. ergo. •

337 28463-11 Rehan Malik v. WAPDA etc. 'Nemo.
M/s Modern Fabrics v. WAPDA Nemo.
338 28777-11
etc.
M/s LYallpur Textile v. GoVt. Of Nemo.
339 28795-11
Pakistan etc. •
340 28468.-11 Dr. Behjat Majid v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
341 28342-11 'M/s.Marjan CNG v..WAPDA etc. Nemo..
Sahiwal Cold Storage Association v. Nemo.
342 28618-11 Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
M/s New Chaudhry Firers v. Govt. Nemo.
343 29077-11
Of Pakistan etc.
Muhammad Zafar etc. v. 1WAPDA Nemo.
344 28895-11 etc.
M/s Mian Mehmood-Rashid and
345 28744-11 Resham Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms.,Roohi Saleha, Advocates. .
346 28868-11 Shafqat Parveen v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Pak Italian Ceramics v. WAPDA Nemo.
347 28794-11
etc.
M/s Fawad Tektile Mills Ltd. v. M/s Adnan Ahmad and Sharjeel
348 28768-11 Ijaz Advocates.
WAPDA etc.
349 28918-11 Faisal Akram etc. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Mian MebmpodRai Shidand
350 29122-11 Kohinoor Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AktioeateS.
M/s Mian Meltmood+,Rashid.and,
351 787-12 M/s Noor Hussain v. WAPDA etc.. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdybeateS.
M/s Mian Mehmoocl*Shid and
352 854-12 Tata Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates:
M/s Mian MelunoodXasliciand
353 1877-12 Reliance Weaving v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocaiei.
M/s Mian Mehnioo 4 "34
354 853-12 Thal Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, dvpicaies:
355 1878-12 Faisal Saleemrn etc. v. WAPDA etc. Mr. Muhammad N 04Nx1046,
M/s Mian Me4iinocid#aldd
356 1740-12 Fatima Enterprises v. WAPDA etc. Ms: Roohi Saleha, AdVO6itesi,1:
Sardar Pur Textile Mills Ltd. v. Nemo.
357 2475-12 WAPDA etc.
M/s Ali Steel Furnace etc. v. Mr. Mustafa. Kamal Advocate.
358 4322-12 WAPDA etc.
M.S Bhimra Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Mr. Mustafa Kamal Advocate.
359 6276-12 v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Compact Particle Board (Pvt.) Nemo.
360 6477-12 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
Shahzad Textile Mills Ltd. v. M/s Mian Mehmoodai.shid and
361 6447-12 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVbLtes:
Golden Textile Mills Ltd. v. M/s Migt Melanaooelxislii4 and
362 6448-12 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdV'OeateS;
M/s A.T.S. Synthetic (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
363 6290-12 WAPDA etc.
Lahore Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/s Mian MehmoodAsilidand
364 7145-12 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advbeates..
M/s Mian Mehmood R4sbid and
365 7470-12 Faisalabad Steel v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdV.spaats:
M/s N.A Steel Industry etc. v. Nemo:
366 7108-12 WAPDA etc.
•
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No.24076 Of2013.
..
(Flying Cement Co Ltd etc Versus Govt. ofPolcistan etc.
Acro Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA s,:hmood

367. 8716-12 s. Roohi Saletu A
etc.
M/s Al Sheikh Foundry v. WAPDA kemo.
368 9450-12 etc.
M/s Abdul.Majid Steel Furnace etc. Nemo.
369 9459-12 :v. WAPDA. etc:
M/s Gamada Textile Mills v. ' Nemo.
370 9460-12 WAPDA etc.
Hamid Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. Nemo.
371 10102-12 Govt Of The Pakistan etc.
Bhatti Cotton Links v. The Govt Of Nemo.
372 10322-12 The Pakistan etc.
M/s Be Be Jan Colour Ltd. v. Nemo.
3.73 11841-12 WAPDA etc.
M/s Kohinor Textile Mills Ltd. v. Mian Muhammad Hussain Chotiya
374 12195-12 WAPDA etc. • Advocate.
Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA Mis Mian Melunood gashid(and ,
375 12946-12 etc. Ms. Roohi Saleta;Aaiboatai.
J.K. Tech (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA Mr. MUstafa Kenull, Advocate.
376 12891-12 etc.
Health Med Steel Furnace v. Nemo.
377 12893-12 WAPDA etc.
M/s Nizami Steel Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
378 12880-12
etc.
Prosperity Waving Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehinood :idandi
379 13852-12 etc. Ms. Roohi •
Crescent Textile Mills v. WAPDA M/sgianMe! -

380 13853-12 etc. Ms. RO.OhiSar
M/s Pak Lane Tower Ltd. v. //ianMuha#4ad+144iii:!dC-tijO‘tiyal
1■
381 16015-12 WAPDA etc. AdvOca.te. -1
M/s Prime Packages Farooqabad Nemo.
382 17604-12 Industries v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Asia Spinning Mills v. Govt. of. Nemo.
384 13077-11 Kohinoor Textile Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
Ayesha Spinning Mills v. Federation M/s Man Meliood.
385 23098-13 of Pakistan etc. R.i4ohi
M/s Tariq Steel Mills v. Federation Mr. Fliz
386 23474-13 of Pakistan etc. Advocate. `7'..
Abid Kaleem Spinning Mills etc. v. Nemo.
387 23786-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
Saman Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v. Mr. Abdul Walaeed Habib
388 23798-13 Federation of Pakistan etc. Advocate. _
Khalid Shafique Spinning Mills etc. M/v'Mien MehioOd-R
389 23832-13 v. Federation of Pakistan etc. Ms.;Rbohi sa1tiiaA4
Eastern Spinning Mills Ltd. v. M/s:IVLIan Melimbod-
390 23821-13 Federation of Pakistan etc. Ms. '11.601ai sd
Rehmat Wazir Textile Mills v. Ch. Famed Anwar Advocate
Abdul Khaliq etc. v. Federation of
Mirza Mnharninad Abut:akàrt
M/s Lucky Steel v. Federation of Haidek!land Ii4M
NirkkdirooateS.
M/s Riaz Bottlers Ltd. V. Federation Mr:Abdul Weheed
394 23794-13 of Pakistan etc. A.dlocate.
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 20/3. 141P a g,e
,,, _
Sr.# Case No Title l' i ,,,litn T.:)(i.
Malik Muhammad Ashraf v.
395 23542-13 Nemo.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
Ali Akbar Spinning Mills v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid.. and
396 23994-13 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
M/s Hammad Industry etc. v. Mr. Fiaz Ahmad Khan 13aloch
397 24381-13 Advocate.
M/s Arshad Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd.
398 24765-13 Mian Khalid Habib Elahi Advocate.
etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Sargodha Jute Mills Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
399 24832-1 3 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Arslan Yaqoob etc. v. Federation of
400 24868-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Chennab Ltd. v. Federation of Rana Ali Akbar Khan Advocate.
401 25329-13
Pakistan etc. •
M/s Usman Nawab, H.M. Adil
Chakwal Textile Mills v. Federation
402 25354-13 Sikandar and Faiz Rasool Khan
of Pakistan etc.
Jalbani Advocates.
M/s Sharjeel Ijaz, Adnan Ahmad
Chemicals Ltd. v. Federation
403 24111-13 and
of Pakistan etc. Abdul Waheed Habib. Advocates.
Khawaja Spinning Mills v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
ICC Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
of Pakistan etc.
Omer Spinning Mills Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
F.O.P etc.
Madina Steel Industries v. Federation M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
of Pakistan etc.
Shaheen Paper and Board Industry Mr. Zulqarnain Hameed Advocate.
409 24067-13
etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Usman Navvab, H.M. Adil
Kohinoor Spinning Mills v. Sikandar and Faiz Rasool Khan
410 25406-13
Federation of Pakistan etc. Jalbani Advocates.
M/s Abu Bakar Anees Textile etc. v. Rana Ali Akbar Khan Advocate.
411 24820-13
. - .. .. .. . 1 TT • _ /...11_ .- ■
.!- ....
M/s Mian Steel etc. v. Federation o tan amm

412 27515-13 Advocate.
Pakistan etc.
M/s Ravi Paper Mills etc. v. Mian Muhammad Hussain Chotiya
413 2433(1-13 Federation of Pakistan etc. Advocate.
M/s Fatima Enterprises Spinning Ch. Ishtiaq Anwar, Advocate.
414 24677-1 Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
3
M/s Ahmad Textile etc v . Federation Rana Ali Akbar Khan Advocate.
415 27597-13
of Pakistan etc.
Ibrahim Dyeing & Textile Industries Rana Ali Akbar Khan Advocate.
416 27697-13 v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Farooq Fayaz Textile Mills v. Rana Ali Akbar Khan Advocate.
Muhammad Aslam Steel v. Mian Muhammad Hussain Chotiya
418 27768-13 Federation of Pakistan etc. Advocate.
U.S. Denim v. Federation Of Mr. M.A. Hameed Awan Advocate,
Popular Food Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mr. Khalil Ur Rehman, Advocate.
420 2930%13
Munir Power Looms V. Federation of Mr. Abdul Waheed Habib
421 30460-13 Advocate.
Pakistan etc.
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No. 4076 0120/3.
Sr.# Case No Title ' ,s‘ ly,.): (tfu' , !q,a :6 c,

Ch. Steel Mills etc. v. Federation of
422 1825-14 Rana Sajid Rasool AdvoCate
Pakistan etc.
Munir Steel Casting etc. v. Mian Muhammad Hussain CliotlYa • i-
423 23863-13 Advocate.
Amin Afzal v. Federation Of
424 2217-13 Nemo.
Pakistan ,
M/s Best Way Cement v. Federation ' )
425 2166-13 Nemo.
of Pakistan
M/s Lafarge Cement Co. v. Nemo.
426 2204-13 Federation Of Pakistan etc.
M/s Texila Cotton Mills etc. v. Govt.
427 2239-13 Nemo.
Of Pakistan etc.
Rizwan Textile Mills v. Federation
428 225.3-13 Nemo.
Of Pakistan etc.
M/s Taxila Cotton Mills etc. v. Nemo.
429 2495-13
Federation Of Pakistan etc,
M/s Disposable Utensils Industries v. i
430 2531-13 Nemo.,
IESCO etc.
Colony Textile Mills Ltd. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
431 6861-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates,
WAPDA etc.
432 29926-13 Haq Brothers etc. v. WAPDA etc. Mr. N.A. Butt Advocate.
Chenab Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Nemo.
M/s Ah and Sons etc. v. Federation
434 26992-13 Nemo. '
of Pakistan etc.
M/s Nizami Wire Industries v. Nemo.
435 26857-13 Federation of Pakistan etc. ‘
. ,.I
Khalid Taj, Taj International Ltd. etc.
436 26870-13 Nemo.
v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Abdul Wasay Flour Mills v. Mr. Khurram Shahbaz ,Butt \
Ravi Floor Mills v. Fedcration of Mr. Khurram Shahbaz Butt
438 26869-13 Advocate.
Pakistan etc.
M/s Eastern Steel Mills etc. v.
439 26715-13 Nemo.
Zulaikha Textile Mills v. Federation Barrister Usman Rashid Cheerna
440 26866-13 of Pakistan etc. AdVocate.
M/s Aryan Steel Industry v. Mr. Fiaz Ahmad Khan Baloch
Chaudhry Steel Re Rolling Mills Ch. Muhammad Mohsin Virk
442 26756-13 (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan Advocate.
etc.
Sapphire Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
443 26865-13 Federation of Pakistan etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Bilal Steel Mills (Pvt.).Ltd. v. Mr. Muhammad Mohsin Virk
Khawaja Woolen Mills v. Federation Mr. Abdul Waheed Habib
445 2_6856-13 of Pakistan etc. Advocate.
M/s Rehman Steel Furnace v. Mr. Fiaz Ahmad Khan Baloch
Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd. v. Nemo.
447 26908-13 Federation of Pakistan etc. , ...._ __........
M/s Mushtaq Cold Storage v. Nemo.
M/s Maple Leaf Cement etc. v. Nemo.
Schedule-A. 1.61tVa
(Flying Cement Ca Ltd. etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Sr.#
Wit
Zulficlar Siddique v. Federation of Nemo.
450 Pakistan etc.
Basra Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mr. Khalil Ur Rehman, Advocate.
Shahid Ahmad etp. v. Federation of Nemo.
Magna Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mr. Khalil Ur Rehman, Advocate.
Muhammad Sarwar v. Federation of Nemo.
M/s Adil Steel Furnace etc. v. F.O.P Mr. Mustafa Kamal Advocate.
455 24223-13
etc.
Crescent Sugar Mills v. Federation of Nemo.
Makkah Steel Mills v. Federation of Nemo.
Zulaikha Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
Barrister Usman Rashid Cheema
Advocate.
Fast Steel Casting v. Federation of
Pakistan etc.
Nemo.
459 24080-13
M/s Adrian Ahmad and Sharjeel
Shahpur Textile Mills Ltd. v.
460 26495-13 l'az Advocates.
Ittehad Chemicals Ltd. v. Federation Mr. Azhar Siddique Advocate.
461 24082-13 of Pakistan etc.
1-laji Muhammad Ali etc. v. Nemo.
Saraj Din etc. v. Federation of Nemo.
Nazeer Paper Board v. Federation of
Faisal Spinning Company v. Nemo.
Afzal v. Federation of Pakistan etc. Nemo.
466 27306-13
AA Paper (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Mr. Khalil Ur Rehman, Advocate.
M/s S.T. Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Nemo.
Nishat Dairy (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation
26805-13
Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
469 of Pakistan etc.
Jahangir Hussain etc. v. Federation Nemo.
470 29881-13 of Pakistan etc*.
Husnain Spinning Mills v. Ch. Fareed Anwer Advocate.
M/s Adrian Ahmad and Sharjeel
Taymur Spinning Mills v. Federation
24587-13 raz Advocates.
472 of Pakistan etc.
M/s Kamal Steel Re-Rolling Mills
(Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan Nemo.
26595-13
etc.
Muhammad Alma etc. v. Federation Nemo.
474 24459-13 of Pakistan etc.
M/s Usman Steel Foundry etc. v. Nemo.
Shoaib Salman Textile Mills etc. v. Nemo. .
M/s Khalid Siraj Textile Mills etc. v. Nemo.
27065-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No, 24076 01'2013. 1`1'115 :
).'.\(4°
M/s Al Madina Steel Furnace v. t
478 27020-13 Nemo.
M/s Ashraf Steel v. Federation of
479 27091-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Qadri Brother (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v.
480 26716-13 Nemo.
,
Sajid Qayum v. Federation of Mr: Muhammad Mohsin Virk
481 27068-13
Pakistan etc. Advocate. ,
M/s Zia Brothers v. Federation of Mr. Khurram 'Shahbaz Butt
482 27095-13
Pakistan etc. Advocate.
Lucky Packaging Ltd. v. Federation
483 27052-13 Rana Ali Akbar Khan Advocate.
of Pakistan etc.
A.H.M Enterprises v. Federation of
484 24574-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Shamas Textile Mills etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
485 23729-13
Federation of Pakistan etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Bilal Fibers Ltd. v. Federation of
486 27308-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Amin Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and , .,
487 26909-13
Muhammad Farooq v. Federation of
488 26765-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
M/s Kamalia Steel Furnace etc. v.
489 26893-13 Nemo.
Federation of Pakistan etc. ,,
M/s Good Luck Flour Mills v. Mr. Khurram Shahbaz Butt
490 27092-13
Federation of Pakistan etc. Advocate.
M/s Adil Rice Mills v. Federation of
491 27093-13 Nemo:
Pakistan etc.
M/s Na Steel Industries v. Federation
492 24536-13 Nemo.
of Pakistan etc.
Kw. Shahbaz Ahmad v. Federation
493 26185-13 Nemo.
of Pakistan etc.
Monnoo Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and .
494 26669-13
Nauman Shakeel v. Federation of
495 26899-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Phono Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
496 28112-12 Mr. Nasir Ahmad Awan, Advocate.
. , WAPDA etc.
497 2735-11 M/s Central Associates v, WAPDA Nemo.
Phono Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
498 13213-13 Nemo.
WAPDA etc.
499 6507-1 I M/s Fatima Floor Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
500 11033-11 Shoaib Paper Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
501 11034-H Qaiser Shabbir v. WAPDA Nemo.
Muhammad Jawaid Shari f etc. v.
502 24363-13 Nemo.
M/s Lucky Steel Foundry (Pvt.) Ltd. Ch. Muhammad Mohsin Vir •
503 26694-13 Advocate.
v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Malik & Sons etc. v. Federation Mian Muhammad Hussain Chotiya
504 26766-13
of Pakistan etc. Advocate.
M/s Mian Mehmood Rishid and"
505 17473-11 Nishat Mills v. WAPDA etc.
Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocate,
D.S Industries Ltd. etc. v. WAPDA
506 20976-11 Mr. Mustafa Kama' Advocate.
etc.
H.A. Haq Spinning Mills v. WAPDA
507 21400-11 Mr. Mustafa Karnal AdvOCate..
etc.
Schedule-A.
(Flying Cement Co. Lid etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Sr.# Case No
M/s Abdul Wasay Flour Mills v. M/s KhurramShahliaz sfgtt:ap
508 23632-11 WAPDA etc. Mirza Bilal Zafar. Advocates.
Sarwar Rubber Industries v. Nemo.
509 23872-11 WAPDA etc.
Zaman Paper & Board Mills v. Nemo.
510 24039-11 WAPDA etc.
Muhammad Sadiq Weaving Factory Nein°.
511 26392-11 etc. v. WAPDA etc.
Reliance Weaving Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
etc.
513 6862-11 Fazal Cloth Mill v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
M/s Mian Mehrnood Raahid and
514 6866-11 Gulistan Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates..
515 6867-11 Gulshan Spinning v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdvoCates.
M/s Mian MelunoodRashid and
516 6868-11 Gulshan Spinning v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Fazal Rehman Fabric v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehmood-Rashid and';
517 6869-11
etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdvbeateS..
M/s Mian Mehmood-RaShid and
518 6870-11 Ahmad Fine Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVocates.
519 5004-12 Ch. Saghir Ahmad v. WAPDA Nemo.
Muhammad Mansha etc. v. Nemo.
520 5408-12 Federation of Pakistan. etc.
Sher Muhammad etc. v. Chairman Nemo.
521 5459-12 WAPDA etc.
Amzad Javed v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
522 5517-12
Syed Asghar Raza Girdazi v. Nemo.
523 5643-12 WAPDA etc.
Shadab Ice Factory v. Federation Of Nemo.
525 5331-12 Muhammad Ali v. F.O.P. etc. Nemo.
526 5334-12 Abdul Rehman v. WAPDA Nemo.
527 5338-12 Noor Muhammad v. F.O.P. etc. Nemo.
Maqbool Hussain Shah v. WAPDA Nemo.
528 5339-12
Habib Ur Rehman etc. v. Chief Nemo.
529 5345-12 Executive MEPCO etc.
Rana Muhammad Farooq v. Nemo.
530 5341-12 WAPDA
5043-12 Zafar Iqbal etc. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
531
Malik Haq Nawaz v. WAPDA Nemo.
532 5254-12
Muhammad Saleem Shahid v. F.O.P. Nemo.
533 5261-12 etc.
7123-12 Mehmood AshrafKhan v. WAPDA Nemo.
534
Muhammad Ashraf v. Federation of Nemo.
536 6991-12 Faisal Asad Textile Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
M/s Fatima Enterprises Ltd. v. Nemo.
537 6948-12 WAPDA etc.
6863-12 Talal Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
538
Muhammadi Glass Iceitctory v. Nemo.
539 6861-12 WAPDA
Arshad Abbas,Ice Factory v. Nemo.
540 6860-12 WAPDA
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No. 241076 Of 2013.
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. etc. Versus ,Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Sr.# Case No Title

Muhammad Glass Ice Factory v. Nerno.
541 6852-12
WAPDA
. 542 6850-12 Venus Oil Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Mushtaq Enterprises v. Nemo.
M/s Solex Agro Industry, Multan v. Nemo.
545 6821-12 Punjab Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
546 6819-12 Jalandher Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
547 6818-12 Sohail Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
548 6809-12 Chaudhary Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
549 6808-12 Ismailia Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
550 6807-12 M/s Dastagir Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
551 6806-12 Athar Ice Factory v. WAPDA
552 6805-12 Batala Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
Baha-Ud-Din Ice Factory v. Nemo.
553 6817-12 WAPDA
Sheikh Karamat Ice Factory v. Nemo.
554 6816-12 WAPDA
555 6814-12 Punjab Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
556 6813-12 Jamal Oil Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
557 6812-12 Al-Farooq Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
Mumtaz Ahmad Ice Factory v. Nemo.
558 6804-12 WAPDA
559 6803-12 M/s Rahim Industries v. WAPDA Nemo.
560 6802-12 Rana Shahid Niaz v. NEPILA etc. Nemo.
Muhammad Saleem Anjum v. Nemo.
561 6785-12
WAPDA
Sahibzada Javed Iqbal v. Ministry Of Nemo.
562 6704-12 Power etc.
Abdul Hakeem Floor Mills v. Nemo.
563 6811-12 WAPDA
564 6810-12 Sadat Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
565 6677-12 M/s Asim Qaisar & Co. v. F.O.P. etc. Nemo.
566 6668-12 M/s Zumar-E-Hira Tours v. WAPDA
567 6801-12 Pir Kabir Flour Mills v. WAPDA
Yasrab Ice Factory etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
568 6687-12
etc.
569 6684-12 Hussain Bakhsh etc. v. WAPDA
M/s K.A. Gases (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
570 6688-12 WAPDA
Muhammad Naveed Akhtar v. Nemo.
571 6800-12 WAPDA
6799-12 Kausar Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
572
573 6798-12 Madina Ice Factory v. WAPDA
Malik Mushtaq Ice Factory v.
574 6796-12 WAPDA
575 6786-12 M/s Rehbar CNG Station v. WAPDA
Fazal-Ur-Rehman Ghee Mills v.
576 6666-12 WAPDA
Iftikhar Ahmad Professor v.
577 6664-12 WAPDA
578 6663-12 M/s Fraz Fiber v. WAPDA Nemo.
579 6628-12 Muhammad Afzal etc. F.O.P. etc. Nemo.
Schedule-A.
y2Srji: Case No Title !

M/s Fayyaz Ice Factory v. Federation
. 580 6571-12 Nemo.
Of Pakistan etc.
Nisar Factory v. Federation Of
581 6570-12 Nemo.
Pakistan
Muhammad Hameed v. Federation of
582 5315-12 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
583 5313-12 Umar Hayat v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
584 5312-12 Abdul Qayyum v. WAPDA Nemo.
585 5307-12 Muhammad Aslam etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
586 5302-12 Israr Ahmad v. WAPDA Nemo.
587 5295-12 Muhammad Azam v. WAPDA Nemo.
588 5286-12 Muhammad Sharif etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
589 5285-12 Muhammad Hayat v. WAPDA Nemo.
M/s Al-Qaim Textile Mills v.
590 3071-11 Nemo.
WAPDA
591 6508-11 M/s Nasir Floor Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
M/s Rizwan Steel Furnace v.
592 28755-13 Nemo.
Aziz Oil Mills Ltd. v. Federation of
593 27691-11 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
M/s Roshan Steel Furnace v.
594 29358-13 Nemo.
Steel Innovators (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Ch. Muhammad MoliSin Virle
595 23867-13
Federation of Pakistan etc. Advocate.
M/s Siddique Iron Industries v.
596 23969-13 Nemo.
597 245-13 Insaf Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Ali Steel Furnace v. WAPDA
598 252-13 Nemo.
etc.
Idrees Textile Mills v. Federation of
599 23908-13 Mr. Khalil ur Rehman Advocate
Pakistan etc.
M/s Shoaib Steel Mills v. Federation
600 23955-13 Nemo.
of Pakistan.
Hameed Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
601 17221-11 Nemo.
WAPDA etc.
Arsam Pulp and Paper Board
602 26613-13 Industries v. Federation of Pakistan Ch. Khalil Ur Rehman Advocate
etc.
.
Shujaat AKKhan)
Judge
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
P76.
W.P. No. of 2013
1. Flying Cement Company Limited

2. Flying Paper Industries Limited
Both being offices at 103-Fazal Road, Cantt Johan Park, Lahore Cantt:,
Lahore.
Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Water &
Power, Islamabad.
The Water & Power Development Authority (WAPDA) through
its Managing Director, WAPDA House, Lahore.
3 The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA)
through its Chairman, Islamabad.
4 The Pakistan Electric Power Company (PEPCO) through its
Managing Director, WAPDA House, Lahore.
5 The National Transmission & Dispatch Company (NTDC)
through its Managing Director, WAPDA House, Lahore.
• 6
7.
The Central Power Purchase Agency (CPPA) through its
Managing Director WAPDA House, Lahore.
The Faisalabad Electric Supply Company through its Chief
Executive, Faisalabad.
8. The Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) through its
General Manager, PIA Tower, Lahore.
9. The Director, Customer Support Services, FESCO / LESCO,
Faisalabad / Lahore.
10. The concerned XEN, Sub Division, FESCO/LESCO,
Faisalabad/Lahore.
11. The concerned Revenue Officer, Sub Division, FESCO /
LESCO, Faisalabad / Lahore.
RESPONDENTS
•

HC Judgment Consolidates Petitions Challenging Electricity Surcharges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HC Judgment Consolidates Petitions Challenging Electricity Surcharges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S.

.Chairman, NEPRA, Islamabad.

3.6ecretary Ministry of Water & Power Development

Subject: WRIT PETITION No. 24076/2013, All Cases List Attached

111 In continuation of this Court letter No.

I am directed to forward for information and immediate

compliance a copy of this Court's Order/Judgment dated 5.11.2014

Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013.

Date of hearing 26.09.2014.

• Petitioners by: Mr. Azhar Siddique, Advocate.

Respondents by: Mr. Naseer Ahmad Bhutta, Additional Attorney

intend to decide this p ,tition as well as those mentioned in Schedule-

mentioned in Schedule-B, the petitioners have challenged the

imposition of Surcnarge and its subsequent enhancement through

Notifications dated 15.03.2011 and 06.05.2011, respectively, whereas

in the petitions mentioned in Schedule-C (including the instant

• petition), the petitioners have assailed the levy of Equalization

Surcharge through Notification dated 05.08.2013.

2. Briefly, the facts, forming factual canvass of these petitions, are

that the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power,

through Notification dated 15.3.2011, levied Surcharge on electricity

at the rate of 2%. By virtue of Notification dated 6.5.2011 the rate of

said Surcharge was enhanced from 2% to 4%. Later on, the

• Government withdrew the Surcharge in question vide Notification

dated 16.05.2012. However, through Notification dated 05.08.2013,

the Government again levied Surcharge known as "Equalization

Surcharge" (EQ Surcharge) but subsequently withdrew the same

through Notification dated 11.10.2013. Aggrieved by the

imposition/enhancement of Surcharge in dispute, the petitioners have

preferred these petitions..

3. During the course of hearing, I have observed that despite

counsel are in attendance. Further, there is no intimation regarding

petitioners or their cohnsel's engagement elsewhere despite the fact

reflected in the ca _Ise list. In this situation, such petitions can

conveniently be dismissed due to non-prosecution, however, as all the

this single judgment. Moreover, the decision of these matters cannot

be lingered on for an indefinite period awaiting representation of some

of the petitioners especially when learned counsel representing the

petitioners, in major number of cases, are present before this Court.

4. The contentions urged by Mian Mehmood Rashid, Advocate for

petitioners can be summed Op in the words that no levy/surcharge can

be imposed without determination by the National Electric Power

Regulatory Authority "NEPRA", as envisaged under section 31 (4) of

the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of

Electric Power Act 1997 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act 1997);

that those consumers, irrespective of their category, who are not

above the tariff determined by NEPRA; that imposition of impugned

Surcharge amounts to compulsory extraction of money; that according

to Article 157 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,

1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the Constitution) only the

Provincial Government can impose any surcharge etc. on the

distribution of the electricity within the Province; that section 31(5) of

(CCI), as postulated under Article 154 of the Constitution, thus the

imposition of impugned Surcharge is illegal; that certain other

tax/levy/surcharge cannot be imposed through a Finance Bill rather

the matter is to be approved by both the Houses whereas impugned

Surcharge has been imposed without such approval; that in National

Power Tariff and Subsidy Policy Guidelines, 2014, it has been

admitted that EQ Surcharge was imposed to recover the amount due

on account of line losses or subsidy given to the consumers of other

DISCOs, thus, the same is not justifiable; that discriminatory attitude

of the government was overwhelmingly manifested when EQ