| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4145 = 2026 SLD 4145 |
Islamabad High Court
1-Writ Petition No.2809 of 2018,2-Writ Petition No.3681 of 2018
Presented By: INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J
Petitioner by: M/s Barrister Salman Salam, Hassan Pervaiz and Khalil K. Sahibzada, Advocates. (In both petitions)
Respondents by: M/s Qaiser Imam, Shuja Ullah and Muhammad Daniyal, Advocates. (In both petitions) Date of Hearing: 15.04.2026.
1-Writ Petition No.2809 of 2018,2-Writ Petition No.3681 of 2018
Presented By: INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J
Petitioner by: M/s Barrister Salman Salam, Hassan Pervaiz and Khalil K. Sahibzada, Advocates. (In both petitions)
Respondents by: M/s Qaiser Imam, Shuja Ullah and Muhammad Daniyal, Advocates. (In both petitions) Date of Hearing: 15.04.2026.
Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited
VERSUS
NEPRA and another, Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited Versus NEPRA and another
Law: Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Summary The Islamabad High Court, through a judgment authored by Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas, decided two writ petitions filed by the Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited (CPPA-G), challenging show-cause notices issued by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) under Rules 7 and 19 of the NEPRA (Market Operator, Registration, Standards and Procedure) Rules, 2015. CPPA-G argued that the notices were without jurisdiction, vague, contrary to due process, and beyond NEPRA’s authority, particularly regarding allegations of discrimination and constitutional equality. NEPRA maintained that, as the statutory regulator under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, it possessed supervisory authority over the Market Operator and was empowered to initiate proceedings regarding alleged violations of the MO Rules, 2015. The Court held that a show-cause notice is merely a preliminary step in administrative decision-making and does not determine rights or liabilities. Since CPPA-G had already submitted its reply and the proceedings before NEPRA were still pending, no final adverse order had been passed. The Court emphasized that judicial review at the notice stage is exceptional and is permissible only where the notice is patently without jurisdiction, mala fide, or barred by law. Finding none of these grounds established, the Court ruled that the petitions were premature and not maintainable. Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed, while directing NEPRA to proceed in accordance with law and provide the petitioner a fair opportunity of JUDGMENT SHEET INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- This single judgment shall decide the above captioned writ petitions, involving similar question of law and facts. 2. In writ petition No.2809/2018, the petitioner [Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited] (“Petitioner Company”) has impugned the show cause notice dated 11.01.2018 issued under Rules 7 and 19 of NEPRA (Market Operator, Registration, Standards and Procedure) Rules 2015 (“MO Rules, 2015”), whereas in writ petition No.3681/2018, the Petitioner Company…