P L D 2026 Peshawar 60 (PLP)

SYED ARSHAD ALI, J.

We intend to dispose of the instant petition, along with the connected petitions in schedule "A" and "B", through this common judgment, as they involve similar questions of law and fact. The petitioners' case is mainly premised on two core grounds: first, that Section 31(5) of the Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act 1997, inserted through the Finance Act, 2008, is ultra vires the Constitution; and second, that the impugned notifications issued by the Federal Government lack legal authority and are beyond the scope of the NEPRA Act. A. Facts of the Case

2. The petitioner being engaged with manufacturing of sugar mills/products through its authorized person has filed the instant constitutional petition, challenging the vires of Section 31(5) of the Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 ("NEPRA Act") and the impugned notifications issued by the respondent, Federal Government regarding levy of surcharge. The petitioner primarily contends that the imposition of Debt Servicing Surcharge ("DS Surcharge"), Tariff Rationalization Surcharge ("TR Surcharge"), NeelumJehium Surcharge ("NJ Surcharge") and Universal Obligations Surcharge ("UO Surcharge") under section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act is in conflict with the mandatory provisions of section 31(4) as it only relates to the determination of tariff by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority ("NEPRA"), and no other authority including the government can notify additional tariff in the garb of surcharge. Rather, in order to determine the tariff, it cannot be undertook without having prior recourse to the NEPRA. Moreover, the NEPRA is under obligation to protect consumer from monopolistic and oligopolistic prices in view of section 31(2) of the NEPRA Act, which has laid down the standard and guidelines and in view of these provisions surcharge is not allowed. Whereas, the NEPRA being the authority was required to struck down the surcharge but instead of doing so the NEPRA has acted as agent of the Federal Government and not as regulatory body. Moreover, section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act has provided a naked weapon to the Federal Government to levy 'any surcharge' in 'any name'. On the contrary, levy of any tax, tariff, charge or surcharge is the sole authority of legislature and not the executive. In the present matter the powers of Federal Government to levy and notify surcharge comes within the ambit of excessive delegation, which is not only bad in the eyes of law but also amounts to encroachment upon the powers of legislature, thus, the arrangement under section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act is violative of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. In all these connected petitions in Schedule "A", the petitioners have jointly challenged the vires of section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act and the notifications issued by the Federal Government.

3. In the petitions in Schedule "B", the petitioners have challenged the vires of section 31(8) of the NEPRA Act almost on the same grounds to that of the petitions in Schedule "A". The petitioners contends that the issuance of the impugned notification by the Federal Government with respect of levy of Financial Cost Surcharge ("FC Surcharge") is ultra vires the law and Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), and against the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. In this way, conferring of this legislative function over executive is hit by the well-established doctrine of excessive delegation of legislative powers. B. Arguments of the Parties

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to Section 3 of the NEPRA Act, have contended that NEPRA is a statutory entity created under the NEPRA Act. They argue that, in accordance with Section 31 of the said Act, only NEPRA can charge any tariff, charge, rate or surcharge. Thus, the imposition of tax under the garb of surcharge by the Federal Government is against the scheme of the Constitution and law. Article 154 of the Constitution read with entery in Part II of Fourth Schedule requires that imposition of any such levy in relating to electricity shall be routed through Council of Common Interest ("CCI") established under Article

153. They further contend that the impugned notifications issued under section 31(5) whereby the Federal Government has imposed DS Surcharges and FC Surcharges amounts to taking away the statutory authority of the NEPRA and conferring it on the sub-legislative executive authority, thus, these are ultra vires the section 7(3)(a), section 7(6) and sections 31(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the NEPRA Act and liable to be struck down. Similarly, the provisions of section 31(5) itself constitute excessive delegation and are against the spirit and scheme of the Constitution as well as the NEPRA Act, therefore, these provisions are too liable to be declared ultra vires.

5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents argue that section 31(5) is a validly promulgated law introduced through Finance Act, 2008, which confers powers and jurisdiction on the Federal Government to notify the NEPRA's approved tariff, rates, charges and other terms and conditions for the supply of electric power services by the generation, transmission and distribution companies upon intimation by NEPRA. Section 31 of the NEPRA Act elaborately lay down a procedure for the determination of tariff, rates, charges, and terms and conditions for power sales to consumers by licensee, however, the NEPRA is required to recommend it to the Federal Government for notification. Furthermore, the Federal Government enjoy vast powers to levy surcharge in addition to the tariff determined by the NEPRA, as these powers does not encroach upon the powers and functions of NEPRA in any manner under the Act. In neither way, the Surcharges levied by the Federal Government are in conflict with the Constitution, nor does it come within the purview of excessive delegation. Rather, this power of the Federal Government originates from Section 31(5) that is a validly enacted law by the Legislature. C. Issues for determination

6. We have anxiously considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and thoroughly examined the record and material placed before us. Before delving into the respective contentions of the parties, it is imperative, for ease of reference, to delineate the core legal issues that emerged during the course of arguments and which lie at the heart of the present controversy. These issues are pivotal for the adjudication of the matter at hand. The principal questions requiring determination are as follows: (i) Whether the insertion of Section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act through the Finance Act, 2008 renders it constitutionally invalid?; (ii) Whether the imposition of the impugned surcharge by the Federal Government, without recourse to the Council of Common Interests (CCI) under Article 154 of the Constitution, violates the constitutional scheme, particularly in view of electricity being a subject in Part II of the Federal Legislative List?; (iii) Whether the delegation of power to impose surcharges under Section 31(8) constitutes excessive delegation?; and (iv) Whether Section 31(8) confers unfettered and unchecked authority upon the Federal Government, enabling the imposition of surcharges for any public sector project, thereby necessitating judicial scrutiny under the doctrines of "reading down" and "reading in" to preserve the constitutionality of the provision?

7. It is relevant to mention that after the filing of the instant petition and other connected petitions, this Court, through an interim order dated 22.01.2015, suspended the recovery of the impugned levy. However, following the suspension of the judgment of the Divisional Bench of the Lahore High Court by the Apex Court involving adjudication of a similar issue; this Court subsequently vacated the interim order on 23.07.2015, allowing the recovery of the levy under the impugned notifications. Nonetheless, the collection of the stayed amount was deferred until the final adjudication of the main petitions. On 18.02.2021, all connected petitions were adjourned sine die, as the issue concerning the levy of surcharge under Section 31(5) was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Subsequently, through its order dated 23.11.2023 in C.P. No. 1136 of 2015 and C.M.As 2794 and 2795 of 2015, the Apex Court revived these connected petitions and remanded the matters for disposal on merits. (i) Whether the insertion of Section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act through the Finance Act, 2008 renders it constitutionally invalid?

8. A central issue in the present controversy pertains to the Federal Government's authority to levy a surcharge. Through Section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act introduced through Finance Act, 2008, the Federal Government is empowered to levy and notify a surcharge, while the distribution companies are obligated to pay the imposed surcharge. For a comprehensive analysis, the verbatim text of Section 31(5) is reproduced below. (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 subsection shall be considered as a cost incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by the Authority.

9. Pursuant to the powers conferred by parliament upon the Federal Government, the Federal Government has issued the following notifications which are impugned through this as well as the connected petitions: GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the October 03, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O. 908(I)/2014.

In pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is pleased to notify the surcharge at the rate of Rs.0.30/KMh on account of recovering the debt servicing applicable to all the consumer categories on per unit consumption in respect of Ex-WAPDA Distribution Companies (XWDISCOs), namely:- Sd/

(Syed Mateen Ahmed) Section Officer (Tariff) GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the November 01st, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O.982(I)/2014.

In pursuance of subsection (5) 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.911(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories, specified in the Schedule below, of electricity consumers for electricity sold by Quetta Electric Supply Company (QESCO), during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:- SCHEDULE # Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./ KWh) Residential Al 1. 301-700 Units 1.00

2. Above 700 Units 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above --

3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Commercial A2

5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above

6. Regular 1.00

7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50

8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Industrial B 9 BI

10. B1 (Peak) 0.50

11. B1 (Off Peak) 1.00

12. B2 -‑

13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00 Single Point Supply for further distribution

19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW

20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto 500 KW

21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00

23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv

24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00

26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv

27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00

2. Quetta Electric Supply Company (QESCO) shall deposit the amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1 and such additional charges? (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.

4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, QESCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to this notification. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the November 01st, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O.983(I)/2014.

In pursuance of subsection (5) 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.912(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories, specified in the Schedule below, of electricity consumers for electricity sold by Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO), during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:- SCHEDULE # Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh) Residential Al 1 301-700 Units 0.50 2 Above 700 Units 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above -- 3 Time of Use (TOU) Peak 0.50 4 Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1,00 Commercial A2 5 For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above 6 Regular 1.00 7 Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50 8 Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Industrial B

9. B1

10. B1 (Peak) 0.50

11. B1 (Off Peak) 1.00

12. B2 -‑

13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00 Single Point Supply for further distribution

19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW

20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto 500 KW

21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00

23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv

24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00

26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv

27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00

2. Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO) shall deposit the amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1 and such additional charges- (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.

4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, HESCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to this notification. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the October 0lst, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O.984(I)/2014.

In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) 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.913(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against following categories of electricity consumers for electricity sold by Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (FESCO), during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with effect from lst October, 2014, namely:- S# Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh) Residential Al 1. 301-700 Units 1.00

2. Above 700 Units 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above

3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Commercial A2

5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above

6. Regular 1.00

7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50

8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Industrial B 9 B1

10. B1 (Peak) 0.50

11. B1 (Off Peak) 1.00

12. B2 --

13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00 Single Point Supply for further distribution

19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW

20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto 500 KW

21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00

23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv

24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00

26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv

27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00

2. Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (FESCO) shall deposit the amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1 and such additional charges- (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.

4. 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. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad the November 01st, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O.985(I)/2014.

In pursuance of subsection (5) 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.914(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories, specified in the Schedule below, of electricity consumers for electricity sold by Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO), during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:- SCHEDULE # Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh) Residential Al 1. 301-700 Units 1.00

2. Above 700 Units 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above -‑

3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Commercial A2

5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above

6. Regular 1.00

7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50

8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Industrial B

9. B1

10. B1 Peak 0.50

11. B1 Off Peak 1.00

12. B2 -‑

13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00 Single Point Supply for further distribution

19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW

20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5KW and upto 500 KW

21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00

23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv --

24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00

26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv --

27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00

29. Tariff K - AJK --

30. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak (AJK) 0.50

31. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak (AJK) 1.00

2. Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO) shall deposit the amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/ kwh on the consumption of electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1" and such additional charges- (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.

4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, IESCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to this notification. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the November 1st, 2014. NOTIFICATION S.R.O.986(I)/2014.

In pursuance of subsection (5) 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 and No.S.R.O.915(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories, specified in the Schedule below, of electricity consumers for electricity sold by Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO), during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:- SCHEDULE # Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh) Residential Al 1. 301-700 Units 1.00

2. Above 700 Units 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above

3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

4. Time of Use (TOU)-Off-Peak 1.00 Commercial A2

5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above

6. Regular 1.00

7. Time of Use (TOU)-Prak 0.50

8. Time of Use (TOU)-Off-Prak 1.00 Industrial B

9. B1

10. B1 Peak 0.50

11. B1 Peak 1.00

12. B2 --

13. B1 Off Peak 0.50

14. B2-TOU (Peak) 1.00

15. B3-TOU (Peak) 0.50

16. B3-TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

17. B4-TOU (Peak) 0.50

18. B4-TOU (Of-Peak) 1.00 Single Point Supply for further distribution

19. C1 (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW

20. C1 (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto 500 KW

21. C1 (c) Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50

22. C1 (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00

23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv

24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50

25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00

26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv

27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU)-Off-Peak 1.00

29. Tariff K-AJK

30. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak (AJK) 0.50

31. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak (AJK) 1.00

2. Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) shall deposit the amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation Fund to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1" and such additional charges- (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.

4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-1, Fuel Price Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, LESCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to this notification. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the November 01, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O.987(I)/2014.

In pursuance of subsection (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.916(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's approved tariff as below for GEPCO with the Order of the Authority at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, GEPCO Power Purcuase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (for supply of electric power to consumers by distribution licensees) at Annex-IV to this notification, with effect from 0lst October, 2014

2. There shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1" and such additional charges- (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the November 01st, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O.988(I)/2014. - In pursuance of subsection (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.917(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's approved tariff as below for MEPCO with the Order of the Authority at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, MEPCO Power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (for supply of electric power to consumers by distribution licensees) at Annex-IV to this notification, with effect from 01st October, 2014

2. There shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1" and such additional charges? (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the October 01st, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O.989(I)/2014.

In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) 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.918(I)/2013, dated the 11th October, 2013, the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories specified in the Schedule below, of electricity consumers for electricity sold by Sukkur Electric Power Supply Company (SEPCO), during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:- SCHEDULE # Tariff Category/Particular Rate (Rs./KWh) Residential Al 1. 301-700 Units 0.51

2. Above 700 Units 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above

3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Commercial A2

5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above

6. Regular 1.00

7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50

8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Industrial B

9. B1

10. B1 Peak 0.50

11. B1 Off Peak 1.00

12. B2 --

13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50 14. 82 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.01

15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00 Single Point Supply for further distribution

19. C 1 (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW

20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5Kw and upto 500 KW

21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00

23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 kv

24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00

26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv

27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00

2. Sukkur Electric Power Company (SEPCO) shall deposit the amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity of every category of electricity consumer except the lifeline domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1" and such additional charges- (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.

4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, SEPCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to this notification. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the November 01st, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O.990(I)/2014.

In pursuance of subsection (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.325(I)/2014, dated the 25th April, 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to notify the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's approved tariff as below for PESCO with the Order of the Authority at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, PESCO Power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (for supply of electric power to consumers by distribution licensees) at Annex-IV to this notification, with effect from Olst October, 2014

2. There shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity by every category of electricity consumer except the life line domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1" and such additional charges- (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the October 0lst, 2014 NOTIFICATION S.R.O.991(I) /2014.

In pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied a surcharge at the rate mentioned against the categories specified in the Schedule below, of electricity consumers for electricity sold by Tribal Electric Supply Company (TESCO), during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category in accordance with Federal Government Policy with effect from 1st October, 2014, namely:- SCHEDULE # Tariff Category/Particular Rate Rs./KWh) Residential Al 1. 301-700 Units --

2. Above 700 Units 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above --

3. Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

4. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Commercial A2

5. For peak load requirement less than 5kw 0.50 For peak load requirement 5 KW and above

6. Regular 1.00

7. Time of Use (TOU)-Peak 0.50

8. Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00 Industrial B

9. Bl --

10. B1 (Peak) 0.50

11. B1 (Off Peak) 1.00

12. B2 --

13. B2 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

14. B2 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

15. B3 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

16. B3 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00

17. B4 - TOU (Peak) 0.50

18. B4 - TOU (Off-Peak) 1.00 Single Point Supply for further distribution

19. Cl (a) Supply at 400 Volts-less than 5 KW --

20. Cl (b) Supply at 400 Volts-5KW and upto 500 KW --

21. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

22. Cl (c) Time of Use (TOU) -Off-Peak 1.00

23. C2 (a) Supply at 11 Kv --

24. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) -Peak 0.50

25. C2 (b) Time of Use (TOU) Off-Peak 1.00

26. C3 Supply above 11 Kv

27. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Peak 0.50

28. C3 (b) Time of Use (TOU) - Off-Peak 1.00

2. Tribal Electric Supply Company (TESCO) shall deposit the amount of this surcharge in a Fund called the "Universal Obligation Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency for exclusive use for discharging the liabilities of power producers and surcharge paid under this notification shall be considered as a cost incurred by the distribution company to be included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. There shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, an additional charge at the rate of Rs.0.10/kwh on the consumption of electricity by every category of electricity consumer except the life line domestic consumers of the category "Residential A-1" and such additional charges? (a) Shall not form a part while calculating the difference between the relevant rates of NEPRA determined tariff and GoP notified rate; 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.

4. The Order of the Authority is placed at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment mechanism at Annex-II, TESCO power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions at Annex-IV to this notification. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the 10th June, 2015 NOTIFICATION S.R.O. 569(I)/2015.

In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) 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. 985(I)/2014, dated the 01st November 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to notify the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's determined Schedule of Electricity Tariffs for the Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited (IESCO), subject to and along with amount of subsidy and surcharges, with immediate effect, as attached herewith. The Order of the Authority at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, IESCO Power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (For Supply of Electric Power to Consumers by Distribution Licensee) at Annex-IV to this notification is notified, in respect of IESCO.

2. Provided that in pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied with immediate effect a surcharge namely, "Tariff Rationalization Surcharge" at the rate mentioned against categories of electricity consumers as specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by IESCO, during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category. IESCO shall deposit the amount of Tariff Rationalization Surcharge in a Fund called the "Tariff Rationalization Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited and utilized exclusively for discharging of determined cost of power producers. The Tariff Rationalization Surcharge shall be considered as a cost incurred by IESCO and included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. Provided further that in pursuance of subsection (5) 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. 908(I)/2014, dated the 03rd October 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied with immediate effect a surcharge namely, "Financing Cost Surcharge" at the rate and categories of electricity consumers as specified in Schedule of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by IESCO, during each of the billing month. IESCO shall deposit the amount of Financing Cost Surcharge in a Fund called the "Financing Cost Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited for the exclusive use of discharging the financing cost of various loans obtained to discharge liabilities of power producers against the sovereign guarantees of the Government of Pakistan. The Financing Cost Surcharge shall be considered as a cost incurred by IESCO and included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

4. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, Neelum-Jhelum Surcharge at the rate and categories of electricity consumers as specified in Schedule of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by IESCO, during each of the billing month and such surcharge 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the 10th June, 2015 NOTIFICATION S.R.O. 574(I)/2015.

In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) 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. 990(I)/2014, dated the 0 1st November 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to notify the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's determined Schedule of Electricity Tariffs for the Peshawar Electric Supply Company Limited (PESCO), subject to and along with amount of subsidy and surcharges, with immediate effect, as attached herewith. The Order of the Authority at Annex-I, Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, PESCO Power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (For Supply of Electric Power to Consumers by Distribution Licensee) at Annex-IV to this notification is notified, in respect of PESCO.

2. Provided that in pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied with immediate effect a surcharge namely, "Tariff Rationalization Surcharge" at the rate mentioned against categories of electricity consumers as specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by PESCO, during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category. PESCO shall deposit the amount of Tariff Rationalization Surcharge in a Fund called the "Tariff Rationalization Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited and utilized exclusively for discharging of determined cost of power producers. The Tariff Rationalization Surcharge shall be considered as a cost incurred by PESCO and included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. Provided further that in pursuance of subsection (5) 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. 908(I)/2014, dated the 03rd October 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied with immediate effect a surcharge namely, "Financing Cost Surcharge" at the rate and categories of electricity consumers as specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by PESCO, during each of the billing month. PESCO shall deposited the amount of Financing Cost Surcharge in a Fund called the "Financing Cost Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited for the exclusive use of discharging the financing cost of various loans obtained to discharge liabilities of power producers against the sovereign guarantees of the Government of Pakistan. The Financing Cost Surcharge shall be considered as a cost incurred by PESCO and included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

4. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, Neelum-Jhelum Surcharge at the rate and categories of electricity consumers as specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by PESCO, during each of the billing month and such surcharge 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Water and Power Islamabad, the 10th June, 2015 NOTIFICATION S.R.O. 575(I)/2015.

In pursuance of subsections (4) and (5) 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. 991(I)/2014, dated the 01st November 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to notify the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's determined Schedule of Electricity Tariffs for the Tribal Electric Supply Company Limited (TESCO), subject to and along with amount of subsidy and surcharges, with immediate effect, as attached herewith. The Order of the Authority at Annex-1, Fuel Price Adjustment Mechanism at Annex-II, TESCO Power Purchase Price at Annex-III and the Terms and Conditions of Tariff (For Supply of Electric Power to Consumers by Distribution Licensee) at Annex-IV to this notification is notified, in respect of TESCO.

2. Provided that in pursuance of subsection (5) of section 31 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (XL of 1997), the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied with immediate effect a surcharge namely, "Tariff Rationalization Surcharge" at the rate mentioned against categories of electricity consumers as specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by TESCO, during each of the billing month, for maintaining uniform rates of electricity across the country for each of the consumer category. TESCO shall deposit the amount of Tariff Rationalization Surcharge in a Fund called the "Tariff Rationalization Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited and utilized exclusively for discharging of determined cost of power producers. The Tariff Rationalization Surcharge shall be considered as a cost incurred by TESCO and included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

3. Provided further that in pursuance of subsection (5) 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. 908(I)/2014, dated the 03rd October 2014, the Federal Government is pleased to notify that there shall be levied with immediate effect a surcharge namely, "Financing Cost Surcharge" at the rate and categories of electricity consumers as specified in Schedule Of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by TESCO, during each of the billing month. TESCO shall deposit the amount of Financing Cost Surcharge in a Fund called the "Financing Cost Fund" to be kept in the Escrow Account maintained at Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited for the exclusive use of discharging the financing cost of various loans obtained to discharge liabilities of power producers against the sovereign guarantees of the Government of Pakistan. The Financing Cost Surcharge shall be considered as a cost incurred by TESCO and included in the tariff determined by NEPRA.

4. Provided further that there shall be levied till the 31st December, 2015, Neelum-Jhelum Surcharge at the rate and categories of electricity consumers as specified in Schedule of Electricity Tariff for electricity sold by TESCO, during each of the billing month and such surcharge 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 for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Power Project.

10. Through the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power (Amendment) Act, 2021 (XIV of 2021), Section 31(5) ibid was omitted and substituted by inserting subsection (8) of Section 31, which reads as under: [(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and in addition to the tariff, rates and charges notified under subsection (7) and this subsection, each electric power supplier shall collect such surcharges from any or all categories of consumers, as the Federal Government may charge and notify in the official Gazette from time to time, in respect of each unit of electric power sold to any or all categories of consumers and deposit the amount so collected in such manner as may be prescribed. The amount of such surcharges shall be deemed as a cost incurred by the electric power supplier and included in the tariff notified under subsection (7): Provided that such surcharges shall be levied for the following purposes, namely:-- (a) funding of any public sector project of public importance [to the extent decided by the Federal Government]; and (b) fulfillment of any financial obligation of the Federal Government with respect to electric power services [to the extent decided by the Federal Government]. Explanation.

For the purposes of this proviso, the term "financial obligations" includes obligations of the Federal Government to make payments in respect of purchase of electric power as well as obligations related to electric power services secured through issuance of sovereign guarantee: Provided further that the aggregate amount of such surcharges shall not exceed ten percent of the aggregate revenue requirement of all electric power suppliers, engaged in supply of electric power to end consumers, as determined by the Authority.] Similarly, through the same amendment a validation clause was inserted in the NEPRA Act, which reads as under:

51. Validation. [(1)] Anything done, actions taken, orders passed, instruments made, notifications issued, agreements made, proceedings initiated, processes or communications issued, powers conferred, assumed or exercised by the Federal Government in terms of subsection (5) of section 31 on or after the first day of July, 2008 till the coming into force of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be deemed to have been validly done, made, issued, taken, initiated, conferred, assumed and exercised and shall be deemed to have effect accordingly.] [(2)] All acts done or taken and notifications issued by the Federal Government with respect to electric power services, from the enactment of the Regulation of the Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power (Amendment) Act, 2018 till the coming into force of the Regulation of the Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power (Amendment) Act, 2021, shall be deemed to have been validly made and issued under this Act].

11. The NEPRA Act provides a compressive framework for regulating the power sector in Pakistan, promoting efficiency, transparency, and fairness. The NEPRA Act has a broad scope that encompasses various aspects of the power sector in Pakistan, inter alia, including the regulation of power sectors; issuance of licenses to power generation, transmission, and distribution companies; tariff determination for power generation, transmission, and distribution; ensuring fair and transparent prices; market operation; consumer protection, etc.

12. Under the existing legal framework, "tariff" is comprehensively defined under Rule 2(m) of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority Tariff, Standards, and Procedure Rules, 1998 ("Tariff Rules") as the rates, charges, terms, and conditions applicable to the generation, transmission, interconnection, distribution, and sale of electric power by a licensed entity. The NEPRA Act vests exclusive authority in NEPRA to determine tariffs. Section 7(3)(a) of the Act mandates NEPRA to set the tariff, rates, and charges for power services and recommend them to the Federal Government for notification. Furthermore, Section 31 of the Act outlines the procedures and standards for determining, modifying, or revising tariffs, ensuring that these reflect actual costs incurred in power generation, transmission, and distribution. The Tariff Rules provide a structured mechanism for tariff petitions, allowing licensees, consumers, and stakeholders to seek tariff determinations, adjustments, or reviews. NEPRA's tariff-setting process is guided by the principle of prudent cost recovery, ensuring that all justified expenses incurred by licensees to meet consumer needs are recoverable through tariffs.

13. On the other hand, section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act (now repealed) authorizes the Federal Government to impose a surcharge on the electricity against the distribution company required to be notified. The surcharge is typically imposed on electricity consumers through their bills. Given that surcharge is not defined under the NEPRA Act; however, the Apex Court in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills,1 has very elaborately explained the meaning and scope of a surcharge. In the case of Gadoon Textile Mills' (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the legality of a surcharge imposed by the Federal Government in order to meet its requirement of payment of Rs. 2 billion to the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Apex Court, while approving the said levy, has observed that: "

40. After having gone 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. The above view which we are inclined to take is in consonance with the aforementioned cases. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala (supra), though in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 2 of the Finance Act, 1964, which related to the imposition of income-tax, no reference was made to the surcharge but the Indian Supreme Court held that surcharge in fact is a part of the income-tax and, therefore, is covered by the above provision of the Act. Whereas in the case of M/s. Bisra Stone Lime Co. Ltd. (ibid), which is directly applicable on all fours to the case in hand, it is held that a surcharge is a super-added charge, a charge over and above the usual or current dues, it is in substance an addition to the stipulated rates of tariff. It has been further held that the nomenclature, therefore, does not alter the above position and it is an enhancement of the rates of electricity by way of surcharge which was within the power of the Board to fix or to revise the rates of tariff. Reliance was placed in the above report on its earlier judgment, namely, Titagarh's case (1975) 2 SCC 436), in which it was held that the effect of levy of coal surcharge would be to enhance the rates for the supply of electricity stipulated under the agreement. It was also held that the surcharge is appended to a tariff, it partakes of the character of tariff. Whereas in the third case, namely, The Treasurer of Charitable Endowment for Pakistan (supra), it has been held that though section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act refers to imposition of central excise duty but flood relief surcharge was in fact part of the central excise duty.

41. It may be mentioned that the surcharge was kept in a separate account as the intention was to generate rupees two billion out of the liability of rupees 6.1 billion towards the payment of net profits under clause (2) of Article 161 of the Constitution to N.W.F.P. as per aforesaid P.O. No.3 of 1991 on account of hydro-electric stations situated in the said Province. The above item of net profits is admittedly part of operation expenses and, therefore, could have been part of tariff. Whereas the additional surcharge was kept in a separate account as it was intended to be used for discharging certain liabilities of WAPDA and also facilitating the fulfilment of covenant 4.02 of the project agreement dated February, 1990, with the World Bank, namely, to generate not less than 40 % of the annual average of WAPDA's capital expenditure (at page 115 of the WAPDA's documents file marked part-I filed in Civil Appeals Nos.72 to 80 of 1996). The above item could also be included as a part of admissible expenses for determining tariff provided the same did not go beyond the figure of reasonable return on the investment as a whole. It may be pointed out that keeping surcharge or additional surcharge in a separate account for a specific purpose is not a foreign element. It is not uncommon to have separate accounts for surcharge and additional surcharge for specific purpose as pointed out in the case of C.I.T. v. Ernakulam (ibid). In this regard, reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Suhail Jute Mills Ltd. and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others (PLD 1991 SC 329), in which this Court, while maintaining the levy of surcharge and Iqra surcharge as a part of customs duty, has pointed out that distinct names are given for the purpose of being dealt with. In this regard it may be instructive to reproduce para. 20 of the above judgment, which reads as under: "

20. It has already been pointed out while examining the nature of imposition and levy, that it is basically customs duty, that it is additional to all other customs duties, that in one case it is distinguished by the name of 'Surcharge', in the other by the name of ' Iqra Surcharge' and that under section 18 of the Customs Act it is assimilated for the purpose of being dealt with, so far as the machinery provisions requirements are concerned, by the Customs Act, the Officers and authorities dealing with it were fully authorised to deal with it."

14. No doubt NEPRA does not determine the surcharge; however, it is a statutory function of the Federal Government to impose the levy, which later becomes part of the tariff. Therefore, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills (supra), it cannot be treated as tax. At this juncture, we will take the first objection of the petitioner that since section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act was introduced through Finance Act, 2008, therefore, it is constitutionally invalid legislation. We need not to delve in the legal discussion as to whether surcharge could be imposed through Finance Act or otherwise because, through section 51 of the NEPRA Act, the said levy through section 31(5) ibid was validated. The vires of section 51 of the NEPRA Act is not before us. Indeed, it is settled law that, while examining the constitutionality of a statute, a court must exercise restraint, and efforts should be made to save the statute instead of destroying it.2 A similar issue arose before the Apex Court in the case of Khurshid Soap,3 wherein the Apex Court was dealing with the legality of Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2015 ("Act of 2015"), which, inter alia, was an Act being re-enacted pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Durrani Ceramics,4 holding the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2011 ultra vires to the Constitution having been passed through a money bill. The Act of 2015 retrospectively validated the levy of a cess/fee. The Apex Court, in the case of Khurshid Soap (supra), has approved the said validation by observing that: "

28. Keeping in mind the above legal infirmity with which the legislative process suffered in the legislation of GIDC Act, 2011 which led this Court in Durrani Ceramics' Case to declare it invalid, the legislature introduced the bill of GIDC Act, 2015 under Article 70 of the Constitution which was passed by both the houses of the Parliament as a fee-levying enactment. By recasting the GIDC Act, 2015 as a fee-levying instead of tax-levying enactment the constitutional requirements that lacked in the GIDC Act, 2011 were met. This Court in several cases has recognized the right of the legislature to re-enact a law on the same subject, which on account of legal infirmities in its enactment process had been declared invalid by a Court of law, by removing the causes that led to its invalidity. The legislature is also competent to make the re-enacted law applicable retrospectively in order to bind even the past transactions that had been declared invalid. In the case of Molasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (1993 SCMR 1905) this Court at page 1920 held as follows:- "Before considering this question it would be appropriate to make certain general observations with regard to the power of validation possessed by the legislature in the domain of taxing statute. It has been held that when a legislature intend to validate a tax declared by a Court to be illegally collected under an invalid law, the cause for ineffectiveness or invalidity must be removed before the validation can be said to take place effectively. It will not be sufficient merely to pronounce in the statute by means of a non-obstante clause that the decision of the Court shall not bind the authority, because that will amount to reversing a judicial decision rendered in exercise of the judicial power, which is not within the domain of the Legislature. It is therefore necessary that the conditions on which the decision of the Court intended to be avoided is based, must be altered so fundamentally, that the decision would not any longer be applicable to the altered circumstances. One of the accepted modes of achieving this object by the Legislature is to re-enact retrospectively a valid and legal taxing provision, and adopting the fiction to make the tax already collected to stand under the re-enacted law. The Legislature can even give its own meaning and interpretation of the law under which the tax was collected and by 'legislative fiat' make the new meaning biding upon Court. It is in one of these ways that the Legislature can neutralize the earlier decision of the Court. The Legislature has within the bound of the Constitutional Limitation the power to make such a law and give it retrospective effect so as to bind even past transaction. In ultimate analysis therefore a primary test of validating piece of legislation is whether the new provision removes the defect, which the Court had found in the existing law, and whether adequate provisions in the validating law for a valid imposition of tax were made."

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, it becomes evident that the legislative competence of the Parliament to validate a levy retrospectively, particularly where procedural or constitutional infirmities have been identified by a court, has consistently been upheld, provided that the defect in the original enactment is effectively addressed through substantive legislative measures. The mechanism of re-enactment or retrospective validation has been judicially recognized as a legitimate tool of legislative correction, enabling the State to preserve fiscal measures and statutory levies that may otherwise fall due to procedural lapses. In the present case, although section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act was introduced through the Finance Act, 2008, the subsequent validation of 31(5) and all acts and notifications under the same through section 51 of the NEPRA Act reflects the express legislative intent to cure any legal defect and affirm the continued enforceability of the surcharge. It is also a well-settled principle that when the vires of a validating provision is not under challenge, a strong presumption of constitutionality attaches to such enactment. Therefore, in the light of the settled jurisprudence on legislative validation and in the absence of any direct challenge to section 51, the argument that the surcharge is constitutionally invalid due to its initial mode of introduction does not hold any ground. Accordingly, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is found to be untenable and is hereby overruled. So far as the impugned notifications are concerned, it is no body's case that the imposition of surcharge is either confiscatory or the quantum of levy is unreasonable. The challenge is on only legal grounds. Therefore, we have no occasion to interfere. (ii) Whether the imposition of the impugned surcharge by the Federal Government, without recourse to the Council of Common Interests (CCI under Article 154 of the Constitution, violates the constitutional scheme, particularly in view of electricity being a subject in Part II of the Federal Legislative List?

16. Moving on further to the second objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the impugned surcharge was levied by the Federal Government without resorting to the Council of Common Interest (CCI) in terms of Article 154 of the Constitution, as electricity falls under Part II of the Federal Legislative List. There is no cavil to the mandate of CCI as provided under Article 154 of the Constitution that it shall formulate and regulate policies related to matters in Part II of the Federal Legislative List. However, the Powers of parliament to legislate on any matter falling in Part II of the Federal Legislative List without a policy of CCI in that field is quite independent. In the case of Gadoon Textile Mills (supra), the imposition of a surcharge without having a policy decision from CCI was approved by the Apex Court, and it was observed that: "

30. Indeed in the case of Sharaf Faridi (supra), the High Court of Sindh has construed the expression "the supervision and control over the subordinate judiciary" used in Article 203 of the Constitution as exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and effective in operation. This was construed as such while keeping in view Article 175 of the Constitution, which mandated that the Judiciary shall be separated from the Executive within the period specified therein, which period in fact had expired. In this view of the matter, the above report is of no help for construing the above words used in clause (1) of Article 154 of the Constitution. Nor the other reports referred to hereinabove can be pressed into service as the words "regulate" and "control" have been construed therein with reference to the context in which they are employed in the relevant provisions of the statutes. The latter point has been dilated upon hereinafter in detail. It may be observed that the words "formulate", "regulate", "policy" "control" and "supervise" employed in clause (1) of Article 154 of the Constitution carry wide connotations. The word "formulate" inter alia carries the meaning, set forth, reduce to a formula; whereas the word "regulate" inter alia connotes control, subject to guidance. The word "policy" inter alia carries meaning, as the general principles by which a Government is guided in its management of public affairs. The word "control" inter alia connotes, to regulate or guiding or restraining power over; whereas the word "supervise" inter alia carries the meaning, to look over and to inspect. The above 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 to be derived from their context. PLD 1996 SC 324 at page 429, para.23 (Al-Jehad Trust case). Applying the above principle to the case in hand, we are of the opinion that C.C.I. is not required to make decision as to the day to day working of the Corporations mentioned in Part II of the Federal Legislative List and of the related institutions. It is supposed to formulate and regulate general policy matters as to their working, which may include general policy for the working of WAPDA. It may even include a guideline for fixation of tariff by WAPDA but such guideline cannot be inconsistent with subsection (2) of section 25 of the Act, which lays down statutory parameters for fixation of tariff. In our view, the C.C.I. is not required to determine tariff for the supply of electricity by WAPDA to the consumers and to vary the same from time to time as this comes within the ambit of day to day working. It may be pointed out that fixation of tariff of electricity depends on various factors, which regularly and frequently fluctuate warranting revision of tariff from time to time. It may further be observed that there are a number of other Corporations and related institutions under the administrative control of the Federal Government, which deal with manufacture and also of various goods/machinery. Can it be urged that it is mandatory that C.C.I. should fix the prices of the above items from time to time The composition of C.C.I., which comprises Chief Ministers of the four Federating Units and four nominees of the Federal Government, which generally includes the Prime Minister as stated above, militates against taking of above exercise which if taken in respect of all the Corporations and related institutions referred to in Article 154 (1), will be a full time job, the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers instead of running the Federation and the Federating Units will mostly be busy in the above exercise. The requirement under rule 5 of the Rules I of Procedure of C.C.I, to summon a meeting at least once in a year also lends support to the above view, which we are inclined to take." Therefore, the objections raised by the petitioners are answered in negative. (iii) Whether the delegation of power to impose surcharges under Section 31(8) constitutes excessive delegation?

17. It is the contention of the learned counsel(s) representing the petitioner that, through Section 31(8) of the NEPRA Act, the parliament has delegated to the Federal Government (Executive) the essential legislative function, which is impermissible under the constitutional scheme. It was argued by the learned counsel(s) for the petitioner that determination of quantum of surcharge cannot be delegated to the executive being the essential function of the parliament. Our Constitution is based on the principle of trichotomy of powers; the legislature makes the laws, the executive execute it, while the judicature is entrusted with the duty to interpret it. The Constitution identifies and explains the authority of the Parliament to exclusively make laws with respect to any matter in the Federal Legislative List and all such matters pertaining to such areas in the Federation as are not included in any Province.5 Article 77 of the Constitution expressly provides that no tax shall be levied for the purposes of the Federation except by or under the authority of Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). Therefore, it is settled that levy of tax for the purpose of Federation is not permissible except by or under the authority of Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). Such legislative powers could not be delegated to the executive authorities; parliament alone, and not the government/executive, is empowered to levy tax. Delegation of such powers to the government/executive was for the purpose of implementation of such laws which is to be done by framing rules or issuing notification etc.6

18. On the theory of excessive delegation, the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Pakistan Tobacco Company has held as:7 "21 .. Considering the case in hand from these angles, it is important to trace out the principles, governing the delegation of powers by the legislature to executives. There is consensus of the judicial opinion that delegation of powers should not be uncontrolled and unbridled and to check the arbitrary attitude of the executive in exercise of powers, the Legislature must provide some guidelines basing on the policy of the Government to exercise such powers. Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of P.N. Kaushal and others v. Union of India and others (AIR 1978 SC 1457). Relevant para. wherefrom is read as under thus:-- "This is why the principle of excessive delegation, that is to say, the making over by the Legislature of the essential principles of legislation to another body becomes relevant in the present debate. Under our Constitutional scheme the Legislature must retain its own hands the essential legislative functions. Exactly what constitutes the essential legislative functions is difficult to define; The Legislature must retain in its own hands the essential legislative function. Exactly what constituted 'essential legislative function', was difficult to define in general terms, but this much was clear that the essential legislative function must at least consist of the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a binding rule of conduct. Thus, where the law passed by the Legislature declares the legislative policy and lays down the standard which is enacted into a rule of law it can leave the task of subordinate legislation which by its very nature is ancillary to the status to subordinate bodies, i.e., the making of rules, regulations of bye-laws. The subordinate authority must do so within the framework of the law, subordinate legislation has to be consistent with the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the limits of the policy and standard laid down in the law provided the legislative policy is enunciated with sufficient clearness or a standard is laid down the Courts should not interfere with the discretion that 'undoubtedly rests with the Legislature itself in determining the extent of delegation necessary in a particular case. In Vasanthlal Manganbhai Sajanwal v. The State of Bombay, 1961 SCR 341: (AIR 1961 SC 4) the above proposition was summarized in following words:- "A statute challenged on the ground of excessive delegation must therefore, be subject to two tests, (1) whether it delegates essential legislative function or power, and (2) whether the Legislature has enunciated its policy and principle for the guidance of the delegate." Likewise a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore in the case of Muhammad Aslam and others v. Punjab Government and others (1996 MLD 685) following the judgments from our own jurisdiction in the cases reported in PLD 1958 SC 41, PLD 1965 Dacca 156, PLD 1966 SC 854, PLD 1988 SC 416 has held that naked, unbridled and unguided powers cannot be conferred upon the outside agency like executive."

19. Let us examine section 31(8) of the NEPRA Act on the basis of the aforesaid principle of law. A critical aspect of section 31(8) of the NEPRA Act is its clear articulation of the utilization of surcharge revenue. The provision mandates that surcharge revenue may only be used for two specified purposes. Firstly, it allows for the funding of public sector projects deemed to be of public importance, with the extent of such funding determined by the Federal Government. This grants the government the discretion to allocate surcharge revenue based on national priorities and developmental needs. Secondly, it provides for the fulfillment of financial obligations related to electricity services, including payments for power purchases and obligations secured through sovereign guarantees. This ensures that the surcharge mechanism is directly linked to sustaining and improving the power sector's financial stability and operational efficiency. Therefore, the imposition of surcharge lacks the essential attributes of a tax as settled by the Apex Court in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills (supra) that imposition of surcharge is not a tax, but is part of tariff determined by the Executive. The said principle is equally attracted to the power of the Federal Government while exercising its statutory mandate pursuant to section 31(8). This being the position, the imposition of a surcharge does not constitute a legislative function of the Parliament in the same manner as the imposition of taxes under Article 77 of the Constitution. Rather, it attracts all the attributes of a fee. We are also fortified by the ratio laid down in Gadoon Textile Mills (supra) approving the imposition of surcharge under the delegated powers by the Executive/Authority pursuant to section 25(2) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. In our considered view, this plea of the petitioners that the imposition of surcharge by the Federal Government pursuant to section 31(8) being excessive delegation, is not tenable. (iv) Whether Section 31(8) confers unfettered and unchecked authority upon the Federal Government, enabling the imposition of surcharges for any public sector project, thereby necessitating judicial scrutiny under the doctrines of "reading down" and "reading in" to preserve the constitutionality of the provision?

20. The petitioners have vehemently argued that the newly introduced subsection (8) of Section 31 of the NEPRA Act grants unbridled and unchecked authority to the Federal Government to impose a surcharge on various pretexts. They contend that the legislature has left the purpose of this imposition open-ended, effectively delegating excessive taxation powers to the executive. Moreover, paragraph (a) of subsection (8) employs the broad phrase "public sector project of public importance," which lacks precise definition and could encompass virtually any public initiative, rendering the provision susceptible to arbitrary interpretation. Consequently, the petitioners assert that this provision is liable to be struck down or at least read down. These assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioners carries weight and requires consideration. Clause (a) of proviso to subsection (8) of section 31 of the NEPRA Act confers upon the Federal Government unstructured, unbridled and vast powers to levy and notify surcharge for any public sector project irrespective of its co-relation with energy sector albeit the essential legislative function to fix and determine the amount of surcharge. Therefore, if the said authority remains unstructured, it might be exercised by the Federal Government by imposing surcharge on electricity consumers for any project beyond the power sector.

21. We are mindful that Section 31(8) of the NEPRA Act grants unchecked powers to the Federal Government and by interpreting it broadly, any project of public sector could be included for the purpose of levying surcharge. Athar Minallah, J, while speaking for the court in the case of Shahtaj Sugar Mills,8 has very aptly explained the theory of legislative instrument which could be used discriminately whether would be a ground for striking the same law. The Honorable Judge has observed that: "The burden to prove that the promulgated law is invalid is on the person who challenges its vires. Based on the said rule, this Court has enunciated the principle that law should be saved rather than be destroyed and that courts must lean in favour of upholding the constitutionality of legislation. The function of legislation is the exclusive prerogative of the legislature. The wisdom of the legislature to promulgate a law and to achieve a particular object and purpose cannot be questioned and, therefore, it is presumed that laws have been legally, validly and constitutionally promulgated on the basis of its competence. The courts have no jurisdiction or power to rewrite the laws and the Constitution. The promulgated laws or its provisions cannot be struck down lightly and it is the duty of the courts to make every possible effort to reconcile the statute to the Constitution and to strike it down when it becomes impossible to do so. The courts are not empowered to strike down a law or its provision on higher ethical notions or on the basis of philosophical concepts and no mala fide can be attributed to the legislature. It is the duty of the courts to give effect to the scheme of representative governance of the State which is the foundation and the edifice of the Constitution is built on it. This Court has, therefore, laid down stringent and narrow grounds in the context of striking down a law or a provision while exercising the power of judicial review. In Ms. Imrana Tiwana's case this Court, after surveying its jurisprudence, has summarised the grounds for striking down a law and they are as follows; (i) There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality and a law must not be declared unconstitutional unless the statute is placed next to the Constitution and no way can be found in reconciling the two; (ii) Where more than one interpretation is possible, one of which would make the law valid and the other void, the Court must prefer the interpretation which favours validity; (iii) A statute must never be declared unconstitutional unless its invalidity is beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the statute being valid; (iv) If a case can be decided on other or narrower grounds, the Court will abstain from deciding the constitutional question; (v) The Court will not decide a larger constitutional question than is necessary for the determination of the case; (vi) The Court will not declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the spirit of the Constitution unless it also violates the letter of the Constitution; (vii) The Court is not concerned with the wisdom or prudence of the legislation but only with its constitutionality; (viii) The Court will not strike down statutes on principles of republican or democratic government unless those principles are placed beyond legislative encroachment by the Constitution. (ix) Mala fides will not be attributed to the Legislature." The Honorable Judge has further observed that: "This Court, in Shaukat Ali Mian's case has drawn a distinction between a provision of a statute which may be ex facie discriminatory and the provisions which may be capable of pressing into service in an arbitrary and illegal manner. This Court has held that in case of the latter eventuality, the provisions cannot be struck down on the ground that it is capable of being used in a discriminatory manner. Any action taken pursuant to powers delegated under a provision will obviously be subject to the judicial review of the courts."

22. It is equally settled when open ended or close ended legislative provisions comes for scrutiny before the Courts, the same may be examined while applying the principles of "reading in" and "reading down," and the Court must exercise restrains to save the statute instead of destroying it. The appropriate course would be to interpret the statute in such a manner to align it with its object and purpose.

23. The principles of "reading down" and "reading in" serve as essential tools in statutory interpretation, allowing courts to uphold legislative intent while ensuring conformity with constitutional mandates. "Reading down" is employed to preserve the validity of a statute by construing its provisions in a manner that aligns with constitutional principles, thus preventing the need for striking down the legislation. This approach is particularly useful when a provision appears overly broad or ambiguous but can be interpreted in a restricted manner to maintain its legality and effectiveness. Courts apply this principle to avoid declaring statutes unconstitutional unless absolutely necessary, favoring an interpretation that keeps the law functional within the permissible legal framework. Conversely, "reading in" is used when a legislative omission results in ambiguity or unintended consequences. In such cases, courts may infer and incorporate language that aligns with the legislative intent while ensuring that the statute remains coherent and effective. This principle is applied cautiously, ensuring that judicial intervention does not amount to unauthorized legislation but rather serves to give effect to the true purpose of the law. The Supreme Court of Canada, particularly in Schacter v. Canada [1992] 2 SCR 679, has developed jurisprudence on "reading in" as a constitutional remedy to correct legislative defects without striking down the entire provision. The principle is only applied in the clearest of cases where legislative intent is obvious and the remedy does not encroach upon the legislative domain.9

24. Both principles reflect a balance between judicial restraint and the necessity of preserving the integrity of legislative enactments, reinforcing the role of courts in harmonizing statutory provisions with overarching constitutional and legal principles. The rule of "reading down" ensures that statutes and subordinate legislation are interpreted in a manner that aligns them with the broader legal framework, thereby upholding legislative wisdom and avoiding unnecessary invalidation of laws. Similarly, "reading in" is an interpretative tool that allows courts to correct constitutional imbalances resulting from legislative omissions, particularly when such omissions could undermine the very intent behind a constitutional amendment or statutory provision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of M.Q.M. emphasized that reading down is applied to preserve a statute's functionality while ensuring it remains within legislative competence.10 Similarly, in the case of Arshad Mehmood, it was held that courts assume the legislature does not intend to exceed its authority, and provisions should be construed to avoid constitutional violations.11 Moreover, in the case of Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah, the "reading in" principle was recognized as a method to supplement statutory language where necessary to achieve legislative intent.12 The principles of "reading down" and "reading up" are elaborated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sundew Properties Limited, and held as follow:13 "

30. Reading down and reading up are two principles often discussed in legal contexts, particularly in the realm of statutory interpretation. Reading down, which has been firmly ingrained in our jurisprudence, refers to the practice of interpreting a statute narrowly, limiting its scope or application to specific situations or individuals. This approach is commonly employed when the language of a statute is ambiguous or when there is a need to avoid potential conflicts with other laws or constitutional provisions. For example, if a law is unclear about whether it applies to certain types of businesses, a court may choose to read down the statute to only include those businesses explicitly mentioned in the text. On the other hand, reading up involves interpreting a statute broadly, extending its scope or application beyond what is expressly stated in the text. Reading up is a concept that is invoked with great caution within our legal framework because it can lead to judicial activism or judicial overreach, where courts expand the reach of laws beyond what the legislature intended."

25. According to Dr. Avtar Singh and Dr. Harpreet Kaur's Introduction to the Interpretation of Statutes (Third Edition, 2009, pp. 238, 239), the interpretive principle of reading down aims to harmonize a particular provision with the scheme, purpose and object of the statute. They elaborated this concept as follow: "... The principle of reading down, however, will not be available. Where the plain and literal meaning from a bare reading of any impugned provisions clearly shows that it confers arbitrary, unanalyzed or unbridled powers. The rule of reading down a provision of law is a rule of harmonious construction in a different name. It is resorted to smoothen the crudities or ironing out the creases found in a statute to make it workable. However, in the garb of reading down it is not open to read words and expressions not found in it and thus venture into a kind of judicial legislation. The rule of reading down is to be used for the limited purpose of making a particular provision workable and to bring it in harmony with the other provisions of the statute. It is to be used keeping in view the scheme of the statute and to fulfill its purposes. Reading down a provision is an accepted principle of interpretation so as to sustain the provision as well as to effectuate the purpose of the statute. But this provision cannot be invoked where express provision itself negates the same. It has been held that a provision found to be constitutional cannot be read down..."

26. The principle of "reading down" is a well-established rule of statutory interpretation, applied to uphold the constitutionality and functional integrity of a statute while ensuring that no provision operates beyond the legislature's intent. Courts have consistently held that where a provision is susceptible to multiple interpretations, the one that aligns with the statutory framework should be preferred to avoid inconsistency.14 Applying this principle, Clause (a) of subsection (8) of Section 31 of the NEPRA Act must be read down to mean that the surcharge can only be levied for public sector projects specifically related to the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. Such an interpretation is necessary to bring the provision in harmony with the rest of the Act and to prevent arbitrary or excessive financial impositions on electricity consumers. If we allow its applications at the whims of Executive, we are afraid that if the levy is imposed for funding any project beyond the power sector the same would be contrary essential attributes of a fee i.e. quid pro quo.

27. Moreover, the financial structure of the electricity sector is heavily regulated under the NEPRA Act, with NEPRA playing a central role in tariff determination and adjustments. If the surcharge mechanism is left undefined, it would create a bypass mechanism, allowing the executive to impose financial burdens on consumers without the structured oversight required under the NEPRA Act. This undermines the fundamental regulatory safeguards embedded within the NEPRA Act and contradicts its objective of ensuring a transparent and balanced electricity market. D. Findings of the Court

28. In light of the foregoing analysis, it is evident that Clause (a) of subsection (8) of Section 31, in its current form, grants excessive discretion to the executive and is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the NEPRA Act. Therefore, this provision must be read down to restrict its application solely to public sector projects that directly pertain to the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. Accordingly, it is directed that the Federal Government, in exercising its power under subsection (8), shall ensure that any surcharge levied is strictly confined to projects within the electricity sector. Furthermore, any imposition of surcharges beyond this scope shall be deemed ultra vires the NEPRA Act. The relevant authorities are advised to review and amend the provision to explicitly reflect this limitation, ensuring compliance with the statutory framework governing the power sector.

29. In view of the above, the instant petition and the connected petitions in Schedule "A" and "B" stand disposed of. Schedule A S.No. Case Number and Title 1 W.P. No. 3827-P/2014 "Messrs Cresent Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. v. NEPRA and others."

2. W.P. No. 3860-P/2014 "All Pakistan Textile Mills Association (APTMA) and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others." 3 W.P. No. 3877-P/2014 "Sawat Ceramics Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

4. W.P. No. 3879-P/2014 "The Premier, Sugar Mills and Distillery Co Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan."

5. W.P. No. 3881-P/2014 "Messrs Associated Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others."

6. W.P. No. 3883-P/2014 "Brightex Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others." 7 W.P. No. 3884-P/2014 "Kohat Cement Co. Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

8. W.P. No. 3886-P/2014 "Cherat Cement Co. Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others

9. W.P. No. 3889-P/2014 "Askari Cement Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

10. W.P. No. 210-P/ 15 "AK Tariq Foundry and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

11. W.P. No. 211-P/2015 "Messrs Syntron Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

12. W.P. No. 311-P/2015 "Messrs Cherat Packaging Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

13. W.P. No. 313-P/2015 "Hattar Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

14. W.P. No. 315/2015 "MKB Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

15. W.P. No. 350-P/2015 "Swabi Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

16. W.P. No. 515-P/2015 "Muhammad Daud Steel Industry v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

17. W.P. No. 529-P/2015 "Messrs Sher Steel Furnace and Re-Rolling Mills v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

18. W.P. No. 530-P/2015 "Imperial Electronics Lighting (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

19. W.P. No. 545-P/2015 "Khyber Match Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

20. W.P. No. 1102-P/2015 "Messrs Ali Steel Furnace v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

21. W.P. No. 1404-P/2015 "Myka Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

22. W.P. No. 1821-P/2015 "Gul Badshah Steel Furnace v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

23. W.P. No. 1822-P/2015 "Al Haj Foundry v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

24. W.P. No. 1863-P/2015 "Gul Min Shah Steel Foundry v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

25. W.P. No. 1865-P/2015 "ARY Steel Industries v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

26. W.P. No. 1973-P/2015 "MS Aziz Cold Storage v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

27. W.P. No. 1995-P/ 2015 "Messrs Alam Match (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

28. W.P. No. 2286-P/2015 "Messrs Tariq Cold Storage v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

29. W.P. No. 3248-P/2015 "ARY Steel Industries v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

30. W.P. No. 3563-P/2021 "Iftikhar Steel Mills and Furnace and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

31. W.P. No. 4381-P/2021 "AG Steel Furnace and another v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

32. W.P. No. 4409-P/2021 "Ilahi Steel Furnace and another v. The Federation of Pakistan"

33. W.P. No. 636-9/2022 "Muhammad Yasir Steel Foundry v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

34. W.P. No. 637-P/2022 "My Steel Foundry v. The Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary and others "

35. W.P. No. 1670-P/2023 "Messrs New Mohmand Steel Mills v. National Electric Power Regulatory Authority and others"

36. W.P. No. 2379-P/2023 "Messrs Ayaz Steel Foundry and Re-rolling Mill v. NEPRA and others."

37. W.P. No. 2950-P/2023 "Amin Shah Steel and another v. NEPRA and others."

38. W.P. No. 4270-P/2023 "Messrs Khyber Foundry v. NEPRA and others." 39 W.P. No. 4525-P/2023 "Zakir Ullah Marble Factory and another v. NEPRA and others."

40. W.P. No. 6087-P/2023 "Messrs Yar Steel Mills and another v. NEPRA and others."

41. W.P. No. 6208-P/2023 "Messrs SS. Steel Mills and another v. NEPRA and others."

42. W.P. No. 6255-P/2023 "Messrs Jadoon Metal Works (Pvt.) Ltd. v. NEPRA and others."

43. W.P No. 926-P/2024 "Messrs Farhan Steel Industry and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others."

44. W.P. No. 1944-P/2024 "Messrs Salaar Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. NEPRA and others."

45. W.P. No. 2668-P/2024 "Messrs KPK Steel Mills v. NEPRA and others"

46. W.P. No. 4008-P/2024 "Messrs Dua Steel Furnace v. NEPRA and others"

47. W.P. No. 6431-P/2024 "Messrs Haider Steel Furnace v. NEPRA and others"

48. W.P. No. 576-P/2015 "Royal Foundry v. Pakistan through Secretary and others."

49. W.P. No. 589-P/2015 "All Pakistan Textile Mills Association and others v. Pakistan through Secretary and others."

50. W.P. No. 638-P/2015 "Feroz Sons Laboratories Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

51. W.P. No. 639-P/2015 "Kohat Cement Company Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others."

52. W.P. No. 640-P/2015 "Chashma Sugar Mills Ltd. and another v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

53. W.P. No. 641-P/2015 "Khazana Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

54. W.P. No. 642-P/2015 "Hattar Textile Mills and another v. The Federation of Pakistan and others"

55. W.P. No. 779-P/2015 "Amin Paper Board Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary and others."

56. W.P. No. 820-P/2015 "Frontier Green Wood Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

57. W.P. No. 821-P/2015 "Cherat Packaging Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

58. W.P. No. 822-P/2015 "Lahore Steel Mills v. Pakistan through Secretary and others."

59. W.P. No. 828-P/2015 "Messrs Syntron Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

60. W.P. No. 852-P/2015 "Askari Cement Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others.

61. W.P. No. 911-P/2015 "Swabi Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Pakistan through Secretary and others"

62. W.P. No. 913-P/2015 "Messrs Mohsin Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others."

63. W.P. No. 915-P/2015 "Messrs Premier Chipboard Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others."

64. W.P. No. 916-P/2015 "Messrs Premier Formica Industries Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan and others."

65. W.P. No. 966-P/2015 "Popular Juice Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary and others."

66. W.P. No.3893-P/2014 "All Pakistan CNG Association and others v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad and others" Schedule B S. No. Case Number and Title

1. W.P. No. 3225-P/2024 "Messrs HBK Steel Mills v. NEPRA and others."

2. W.P. No. 4248-P/2024 "Khan Wazirs/O Nazeer Khan v. The Government of Pakistan and others."

3. W.P. No. 23-P/2025 "Messrs Iqbal Brothers Steel Furnace v. NEPRA and others." MH/60/P Order accordingly. 1 Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and others (1997 SCMR 641). 2 Baz Muhammad Kakar and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law and Justice and others (PLD 2012 SC 923) and Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1337). 3 Messrs Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others (PLD 2020 SC 641). 4 Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and another v. Durrani Ceramics and others (2014 SCMR 1630). 5 Article 142 of the Constitution. 6 Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1337), Cyanamid Pakistan Ltd. and another v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement), through Assistant Collector Customs House, Karachi and others (PLD 2005 SC 495) and Jurists Foundation through Chairman v. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others (PLD 2020 SC 01). 7 Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and others v. Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 460). 8 Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others (2024 SCMR 1656). 9 AAM LOG ITEHAD and another v. The Election Commission of Pakistan and others (PLD 2022 SC 39). 10 Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others v. M.Q.M. through Deputy Convener and others (PLD 2014 SC 531). 11 Arshad Mehmood v. Commissioner/Delimitation Authority, Gujranwala and others (PLD 2014 Lahore 221). 12 Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz (PLD 2011 SC 260). 13 Sundew Properties Limited v. Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission and others (AIR 2024 SC 3155). 14 Province of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture Department, Lahore v. Saleem Ijaz and others (2023 SCMR 774).