Meetings of the Authority

2021 CLC 959 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.3 & 5National Electric and Power Regulatory Authority (Tariff Standards and Procedure) Rules, 1998, R. 16Establishment of the National Electric and Power Regulatory Authority (Authority)Meetings of the AuthorityScope

Petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution whereby they challenged the orders of the Authority

Main grievance of the petitioners was that the impugned order was rendered by three members of the National Electric and Power Regulatory Authority in violation of R.16(6) of National Electric and Power Regulatory Authority (Tariff Standards and Procedure) Rules, 1998

Validity

Section 5 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, (the Act) provided that meeting of the Authority shall be presided over by the Chairman or, in absence, the Vice Chairman

Section 5(2) of the Act provided in clear terms that three members shall constitute a quorum for meetings of the Authority requiring decisions by the Authority

In order to dispel any doubt as to the effect and or merit of any act and or proceedings by the Authority, legislature had taken due care of eventuality in case where there happened to be any vacancy in, or defect in, the constitution of the Authority

Subsection (6) of S.3 of the Act provided legal cover and any such act or proceedings could not be invalidated on such count

Object of subsection (6) of S.3 of the Act was to keep the Authority functional in all respects in performance of all its functions irrespective of any vacancy but subject to maintaining minimum strength of quorum as three

Impugned orders of the Authority were in accordance with the applicable rules, non-discriminatory and no fundamental legal/constitutional right of the petitioners was infringed

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

2014 PLD 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4(1), 4(4) & 12Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority ("Authority")Meetings of the AuthorityQuorumDecisions of the AuthorityInvalidity of the decision of the AuthorityAppeal to High CourtReviewScope

Appellant impugned order of Authority passed in a review before it, on the ground that same was coram non judice as it had been passed by two members of the Authority excluding the Chairman, which was a violation of S.4(1) of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002

Contention of OGRA on the other hand was that impugned order was valid under protection available by virtue of S.4(4) of the Ordinance and that since the Chairman OGRA was on forced leave, therefore, two members of the Authority sat on the review

Held, that no vacancy was in existence at the relevant time when the impugned order was passed and the Chairman OGRA was on forced leave, therefore, OGRA could not take benefit of S.4(4) of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 in order to justify its decision

Record showed that three members of the Authority had rejected the appeal of the appellants, by a majority decision of two members, and in such a scenario, propriety demanded that review arising therefrom must also be heard and decided by three members of the Authority

Impugned order was therefore passed by an incompetent authority and was in violation of S.4(1) of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and was set aside.