1997 PLP 1669 (SCMR)
GANDAF STEEL INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents .
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1669 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, Actg. C.J Irshad Hasan Khan, Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, Nasir Aslam Zahid and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | GANDAF STEEL INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents . |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1669 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1669 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, Actg. C.J Irshad Hasan Khan, Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, Nasir Aslam Zahid and Munawar Ahmad Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1669 (SCMR) (GANDAF STEEL INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents .). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record and M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.R.P. Nos.57 to 60 of 1996 and 61 to 68 of 1996).
- Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.R.Ps. Nos.70 to 73, 76 and 77 of 1996).
- Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court alongwith Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.R.P. No.78 of 1996).
- Date of hearing: 13th June, 1997.
- 3. In response to the above notice, Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, has put in appearance and has candidly submitted that since this Court has held that surcharge and additional surcharge are part of the electricity tariff, it must necessarily follow that the consumers, who were entitled to 50% concession on the tariff, would also be entitled to the aforesaid concession on the surcharge and additional surcharge.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment dated 30‑7‑1996 in Civil Appeal No.65/1996 and other connected appeals of this Court). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25, 12 & 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXVI‑‑‑Review‑‑‑Consumers, who were entitled to 50% concession on the tariff would also be entitled to 50% concession on the surcharge and additional surcharge which will include the consumers who had been listed in the negative list up to the date when the negative list was put into operation. Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA 1997 SCMR 641 reviewed.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑By this common order we intend to dispose of the above review petitions, whereby review is sought of the majority judgment of this Court in the aforesaid appeals. 2. the aforementioned review petitions had come up for hearing before this Bench on 9‑6‑1997, when we issued notice to WAPDA and Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned senior counsel for WAPDA, only on one point as noticed in the said order dated 9‑6‑1997.
3. In response to the above notice, Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, has put in appearance and has candidly submitted that since this Court has held that surcharge and additional surcharge are part of the electricity tariff, it must necessarily follow that the consumers, who were entitled to 50% concession on the tariff, would also be entitled to the aforesaid concession on the surcharge and additional surcharge.
4. We are inclined to take the same. view. There seems to be an error apparent on the face of para. 71 of the majority judgment, wherein it has been observed that "the consumers who are still enjoying 50% concession in the electricity tariff are entitled to the above concession on the items of surcharge and additional surcharge".
5. The above observations have been construed by WAPDA as if the same were applicable only to those consumers who were enjoying the above concession when the aforestated judgment was rendered and that the same were not applicable to those consumers who were included in the negative list prior to the rendering of the above judgment. We allow the aforementioned civil review petitions to the extent of clarifying para. 71 of the majority judgment that the consumers, who were entitled to 50% concession on the tariff, would also be entitled to 50% concession on the surcharge and additional surcharge which will include the consumers who have been listed in the negative list up to the date when the negative list was put into operation. The above review petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
6. As regards Civil Review Petition No.78 of 1996 filed by WAPDA, no ground has been made out for review of the above judgment. The same is dismissed. M.B.A./C-2/S Order accordingly.