ISLAMABAD: The Sindh High Court (SHC) granted a stay against the recently determined controversial Multi-Year Tariff (MYT) of K-Electric, which resulted in a reduction of the utility’s supply tariff by Rs 7.60 per unit from Rs 39.97/kWh to Rs 32.37/kWh.
Farogh Naseem, Pooja Kalpna, Barrister Sagar Ladhani, Advocates, Syed Irfan Ali Shah, Hurmat M. Soomro and M Maaz Ali Zai and Nabeeta Hassan, legal advisor KE, represented the power utility company against the determination.
KE’s lawyers argued that the power utility company is aggrieved by decisions made by the Nepra of October 20, 2025, on review applications filed by individuals, who were not even the party in the original proceedings before the Nepra.
PD in ‘head-on clash’ with KE over MYT row
The original decisions by the Nepra fixing tariff on application by the KE were dated October 22, 2204, regarding the generation tariff, of May 23, 2025, transmission and distribution tariff, and supply tariff of May 27, 2025, whereby the Federal Government was to notify the said tariff as directed. However, subsequently, review applications were filed by different individuals seeking a recall of the said order.
It was stated although by the impugned order of October 20, 2025, all the review applications were dismissed. However, taking a suo motu notice of its earlier judgment, the NEPRA has reviewed the tariff and fixed inter alia at Rs.32 per unit.
The counsel for the KE submitted that if this tariff is notified by the Federal Government, which has 30 days to do so, the KE would suffer colossal loss and would have to close its operation for a considerable time.
The counsel further submitted that the Nepra, while taking the suo motu notice of its earlier judgment, did not even put the petitioner on notice. He further submitted that against the impugned judgment, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Nepra Appellate Tribunal U/s 12-G of the Nepra Act, 1997, but since the said Tribunal is not functioning, he is apprehensive of coercive action by the Federal Government or Nepra in terms of the impugned decision meanwhile. He has relied upon 2003 PTD 1246 and PLD 1997 SC 582.
According to the stay order, the contentions raised here require consideration and let notices be issued to the respondents as well as the Additional Attorney General for November 19, 2025. Meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in terms of the impugned decision till the next date of hearing.
The SHC Office will place a copy of this order in the connected petitions.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed.