ISLAMABAD: The K-Electric, the first Pakistani privatized power utility company, which is facing a tug of war among its board members, has informed the government that it will continue to charge provisionally determined tariff from its consumers in the light of recent stay order issued by Sindh High Court (SHC), sources told Business Recorder.
The KE has determined its respective tariffs in the manner as follows: (i) generation tariff determination was issued on October 22, 2024; (ii) transmission tariff determination was issued on May 23, 2025; (iii) distribution tariff determination was issued on May 23, 2025; and (iv) supply tariff determination was issued on May 27, 2025.
All the tariff determinations have been duly notified on different dates. Subsequently, through five tariffs determinations, all dated October 20, 2025, the original tariff determinations were reviewed. Such review tariff determinations included determinations pertaining to supply, generation, transmission, distribution and investment plan.
Nepra’s determination: SHC stays controversial MYT for KE
According to Chief Financial Officer (CFO), against the five review determinations, KE has preferred Constitutional Petition (CP) No. D-5384, 5385, 5386 and 5387 of 2025 before the Sindh High Court, Karachi wherein a division bench vide order dated November 04, 2025, inter alia, directed to restrain Power Division from taking any coercive action against the KE in terms of the impugned decisions, ie, the five review determinations, all dated October 20, 2025.
In Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA) 22457/2025 in CP no. D-5384/2025 it has been prayed as follows: -
“It is prayed on behalf of the Petitioner KE that for the facts and circumstances contained in the accompanying affidavit the Court may permanently and pending disposal of the main petition suspend the operation of the determination of Nepra contained in the document bearing No. NEPRA/R/TRF-614/K-Electric/Supply-2024/16710-17dated 20.10.2025 to the petition), while restraining the Power Division and their officers and agents from acting thereupon or notifying the same or from taking any adverse action against the Petition in any manner whatsoever.”
In CMA 22462/2025 in CP no. D-5385/2025 it has been prayed as follows: - “It is prayed on behalf of the Petitioner for the facts and circumstances contained in the accompanying affidavit the High Court may permanently and pending disposal of the main petition suspend the operation of the determination of NEPRA contained in the document bearing No. NEPRA/ADG(Tariff)/TRF-5964/K-Electric-2022/16758-62dated 20.10.2025 (Annex E to the petition), while restraining the Respondents (Power Division)and their officers and agents from acting thereupon or notifying the same or from taking any adverse action against the Petition in any manner whatsoever.”
In CMA 22468/2025 in CP no. D-5386/2025 it has been prayed as follows: -
“It is prayed on behalf of the Petitioner that for the facts and circumstances contained in the accompanying affidavit the Court may permanently and pending disposal of the main petition suspend the operation of the determination of Nepra contained in the document bearing No. NEPRA/R/TRF-612/K-Electric/transmission-2024/16719-27 dated 20.10.2025 and Nepra/Director (Tech)/LAD-01/16749-56 dated October 20, 2025, while restraining the Respondents and their officers and agents from acting thereupon or notifying the same or from taking any adverse action against the Petition in any manner whatsoever.”
In CMA 22475/2025 in CP no. D-5387/2025 it has been prayed as follows: - “It is prayed on behalf of the petitioner (KE) that for the facts and circumstances contained in the accompanying affidavit the PHC may permanently and pending disposal of the main petition suspend the operation of the determination of Nepra contained in the document bearing No. NEPRA/R/TRF-613/K-Electric/Dist-2024/16729-37 and NEPRA/Director (Tech)/LAD-01/16749-56 dated October 20, 2025, while restraining the Respondents and their officers and agents from acting thereupon or notifying the same or from taking any adverse action against the Petition in any manner whatsoever.”
The power utility company argued that it is a settled proposition of law that interim orders are to be construed and understood in the context of the application for injunction. If there is any authority needed for the said proposition, one may look into Fakhurl Arfin v. FoP 2015 CLC 318. KE further stated that under clause 2.1(b) of Tariff Differential Subsidy (TDS) agreement signed in January 2024, where a tariff determination is challenged by KE before a Court of law and restraining orders have been issued against such tariff determination, KE is required to file provisional claims K-Electric Limited based on tariff determination preceding the one challenged by KE.
Relevant para of the TDS Agreement is reproduced as follows:
“Provided further that if a determination or Quarterly Tariff Adjustment has been challenged by KE in the court of law and restraining orders have been issued against such tariff determinations or Quarterly Tariff Adjustment, KE shall file provisional claims on the basis of tariff determination or Quarterly Tariff Adjustment preceding the one challenged by KE.”
After explaining the background, KE has conveyed that it shall continue to submit provisional claims on the basis of the original tariff determination.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.