PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has sought comments from the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra), Peshawar Electric Supply Company (Pesco) and others in two identical writ petitions challenging the levy of four different surcharges in the monthly bills of domestic and commercial consumers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The bench comprising Justice Abdul Lateef Khan and Justice Syed Afsar Shah heard preliminary arguments in the case and directed the respondents in the petitions, including Nepra, Pesco, Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA) and the ministry of water and power, to file written replies to the two petitions explaining their position.

The petitions are jointly filed by over 500 industrial and commercial entities, including All Pakistan Textile Mills Association and All Pakistan CNG Association.

The petitioners stated that Pesco had levied the four surcharges named Neelum Jhelum surcharge, debt surcharge, equalisation surcharge and fix surcharge, which was illegal and unconstitutional.

Advocate Shumail Ahmad Butt appeared for the petitioners and contended that the Pesco had no authority to levy such surcharges in the bills of its consumers in the province as such a decision had to be taken by the provincial government under Article 157 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.

He argued that the surcharge was levied by Pesco after determination of tariff by Nepra. He added that these surcharges had affected the consumers as electricity was a basic utility.

He contended that the surcharges were imposed through different notifications issued under Section 31 (5) of the NEPRA Act 1997.

He said that the section was incorporated into the law through Finance Act 2008 which was an illegal mechanism. He stated that without the approval of the Council of Common Interest (CCI) such amendments could not be made to the law.

Mr Butt argued that Pesco could not impose such surcharges after determination of tariff by Nepra. He added that even Nepra could not levy such taxes without the approval of CCI. 

He contended that these surcharges were levied in a mysterious manner as consumers were kept in the dark about the purpose of these levies. He added that Nepra believed that the debt surcharge was levied to return certain debt outstanding against the distribution companies. However, he added that so far it had not explained how much debt was outstanding.

He pointed out that the equalisation surcharge was introduced to meet the line losses for which the consumers regularly paying bills were not responsible.

He said that under Article 157 (3) of the Constitution the provincial government had the powers to levy such taxes.

The counsel pointed out that the Lahore High Court had already suspended such surcharges to the extent of consumers in Punjab. He requested the court to stay the levy of the surcharges till disposal of the writ petitions. Next date of hearing will be fixed in coming days.

Published in Dawn, December 27th, 2014