Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
P11711f2P4i
111.710...1021119.13.E.11.' couRT.I.LAHQBE
From
The Addl. Registrar (Judi.),
Lahore High. Court, Lahore.
To,
7411
1.Chairman WAPIr
40041737289
Sir,
dated X
Yours Faithfully
Yl/ IL ft-)
Assistant Registrar (Writ)
For Addl. Registrar (Judi.)
Stereo. HCJDA 38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE
JTJDICIAL DEPARTMENT
JUDGMENT
e..
Shujaat Ali Kin J: - Through this consolidated judgment I
lr
repeated calls, in certain cases neither the petitioners nor their learned
W.P. No.24076 012013,
(Flume Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistaned
that names of the learned counsel for the parties have duly been
petitions have not only been clubbed together but the question of law
involved therein is also common, the same are being decided through
enjoying any kind of subsidy, are not liable to pay anything over and
the Act 1997 is ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution; that
the matter was not routed through the Council of Common Interest
provisions of the Act 1997 are algo ultra vires to the Constitution; that
counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Human Rights Case
697), Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise and Sales
Tax and others (2005 PTD 480), The Province of Punjab and another
1997 SC 582), Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and
449), M/s Azgard Nine Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary and others
(PLD 2013 LHR 282), Sved Feroze Shah Ghillani and others v.
and 2 others (PLD 2009 Karachi 69), ICC Textiles Ltd. and 31 others
others [PLD 1965 (W.P.) 272], Abdul Majid and another v. Province
(Trib) 139].
petitioners in some of the petitions, are to the effect that as the source
MAIL
W. P, No.24076 012013
(Fivinz Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Paldstan etc.)
given legal blanket and that as the impugned Notifications were not
issued under section 31(5) of the Act 1997, the same cannot be
equated with charge, rate and tariff, it has nothing to do with NEPRA;
and not mandatory in nature; that the Provincial Government can levy
positive of the fact that the government resorted to such exercise just
to cope with financial pandemonium for the time being; that even
tariff vests with NEPRA but to notify the same is prerogative of the
1997; that Article 157(2)(b) of the Constitution does not debar the
to do so; that the imposition of surcharge does not fall within the
and 2 others (2012 YLR 277) and Shaikh Nadeem Younas, Chief
the same can be filled up 'by this Court while following the dictum
laid down in the cases reported as Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others
Income Tax v. M/s Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 PTD 1392),
Akt
W.P. No.24076 012013 --10--
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc )
Act 1997, thus, the impugned Notifications were issued validly; that
learned counsel for the petitioners has no worth especially when the
that after admission on the part of counsel for the petitioners that the
this Court rather the petitions deserve outright dismissal and that as
view of the verdict of the apex Court of the country in Human Rights
Case No.14392 of 2013 (supra); that as the case-law being relied upon
the respondents; that tax and surcharge being polls apart from each
the same is payable on consumption and not on sale; that if for the
Act 1997, the same can be set at naught by following the principle of
Company (KESC now K-Electric) has not been burdened with such
Advocate has pleaded that had the notification been issued under
section 31(5) of the Act 1997, the petitioners would have definitely
challenged the same while calling in question the vires of said section.
Companies; that since the promulgation of the Act 1997 all the
naught only for the reason that the same were issued while mentioning
Electric for the reasons narrated above, the petitioners have no cheeks
commercial basis and the consumers are bound to face the brunt of
fluctuation in cost thereof, in particular the fuel being used for the said
to the consumers who are not able to bear the raising price of the
electricity.
13. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the parties
through the provisions of law as well as the case-law cited at the bar.
infructuous, I do not find myself in agreement on the said point for the
reason that not only the imposition of Surcharge has been challenged
W.P. No.24076 0(2013 --14--
[F(ying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
in these petitions but the petitioners have also prayed for refund of the
others in the comity of nations. The energy, as such, has become one
challenges for the persons at the helm of the affairs of a State. With a
blackmail the consumer on the one hand and the government on the
generation units the consumers have to bear extra burden. This Court,
order to have the continuous supply of energy for the present and
between the financial status of citizens of the country and the extent of
resources for electricity on the other. Thus, a very heavy duty casts
that balance is struck in such a manner that the system flourishes and
this court: -
following manner: -
under: -
"The history of the use of the word rate' for purposes of local
taxation in English law clearly shows that the word 'rate' was
used with respect to a tax which was levied on the net annual
value or rateable value of lands and buildings and not on their
capital value. But according to AK Sarkar .1, expressing
minority view 'rate', is an expression used to indicate an impost
levied by the local authority to raise funds for its expenses.
Such an impost would be rate irrespective of the basis on which
it is levied."
"Rate" means—
The definition of word "Rate" has been given by The Major Law
manner: -
mariner:-
"Surcharge" means—
am of the view that a bare reading of section 31(5) of the Act 1997
under discussion before the apex court of the country in the matter of
Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others (supra) wherein it has been dealt
below: -
"31. Tariff (1) — As soon as may be, but not later than six
months from the commencement of this Act, the Authority shall
determine and prescribe procedures and standards for
determination, modification or revision of rates charges and
terms and conditions for generation of electric power,
transmission, inter-connection, distribution services and power
sales to consumers by licensees and until such procedures and
standards are prescribed, the Authority shall determine, modify
or revise such rates, charges and terms and conditions in
accordance with the ' directions issued by the Federal
Government.
Alt
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013, --23--
(Flvtne Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v, Govt. of Pakistan etc..
Act 1997, the Government enjoys the exclusive powers. Further, the
Court of Pakistan in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others
(Supra) wherein the law has been laid to the following effect:-
19. The hub of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners,
this regard, I am of the humble view that the Act 1997 was
matters and the NEPRA has been established under section 3 thereof.
/17.0
--25--
W. P. No.24076 01'2013,
fFIvinz Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
According to section 7 of the Act 1997 the NEPRA has been vested
(5) Before approving the tari fffor the supply of electric power
by generation companies using hydro-electric plant, the
Authority shall consider the recommendations of the
Government of the Province in which such generation facility is
located.
makes it crystal clear that thqugh NEPRA has been given multiple
charges and other terms and conditions for supply of electric power
"Surcharge" this Court, in no way, can hold that NEPRA has the
as has been decided under the National Power Tariff & Subsidy
Act 1997.
1997.
considered as having been issued under section 31(5) of the said Act.
the year 2011 and secondly in the year 2013, is of much importance,
"Government of Pakistan
Ministry of Water and Power
NOTIFICATION
"Government of Pakistan
Ministry of Water and Power
NOTIFICATION
relevancy rather the purposes and the background of its imposition are
august Supreme Court in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills and 814
question having not been specifically issued under section 31(5) of the
Board of Revenue and others (2002 SCMR 312) wherein it has inter-
under: -
Act 1997, neither any embargo can be put against it to impose the
same while notifying the tariff determined by NEPRA nor the said
notification can be declared illegal merely for the reason that it does
not specifically find mention of section 31(5) of the Act 1997. At the
cost of repetition it is made clear that for the first time the surcharge
that Section 31(5) of the Act 1997 was incorporated in the Act 1997
According to sub Article 4 (supra) the decision of the Speaker qua the
Bench of this court in the case of Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Govt.
legislate. The said question came under discussion before the august
Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of M/s Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and
e.
There is nobody denying the competence of the National Assembly to
cannot be declared ultra vires merely for the reason that the matter
sub section 5 under section 31 of the Act 1997, through which the
suffice it to note that the same still holds the field and till the time the
A cursory glance over the afore-quoted Article shows that the powers
"PART II
1. Railways.
9. Census.
relating to the subject of electricity. To me, the CCI can form policies
dispute arising between two federating units but its scope cannot be
this scenario, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality has been
Court, while discussing the role ,of the CCI towards determination of
under: -
the Federal Legislative List thus the Federal Government was fully
"18. It will not be out of context to point out that in the above
Article 157, the word "may" has been employed and not the
word "shall", meaning thereby that it is an enabling provision
and not a mandatory provision. The Federal Government and
the Government of a Province have discretion either to act
under the above Article or not to act. In other words, there is
no Constitutional obligation to carry out words or to take
action mentioned in the above Article. "(emphasis provided)
Government can legislate qua the subject without entering into arena
the price of the material which form components of the fuel being
exemplify the said fact day to day increase in price of furnace oil can
consumers at the rate of Rs.18/19 per unit. In this backdrop, the levy
there is no second thought that this Court can exercise its powers as
Travels (Pvt) Ltd. and others v. M/s Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and
tv.P. No,24076 012013, --44--
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
• Further, the apex court of the country in the case of Dr. Akhtar Hassan
is justified. The said conclusion finds further support when the same is
visualized in the light of the fact that the government has been
notifications is also uncalled for the, reason that the provision under
‘114.44
W.P. No.24076 Of 2013,
--45--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
which the same have been issued still holds the field and the
though the vires of sub section 5 of section 31 of the Act, 1997 have
not been specifically called in question but this court can strike it
common knowledge, the history of the times and may assume every
than the one which would render the same unconstitutional as the
latter is one of the last resorts. On the other hand, when the Court,
irrespective of the fact as to, whether the vires of said provision has
beautifully been dealt with by apex Court of the country in the case
Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz (PLD 2011 SC 260)
Revenue Officer, Lahore Electric Power Co. (2010 PTD 2502), has
before the courts should be to save the statute while following the rule
seen that while following the said principle, can the statute remain
section 31(5) of the Act 1997 can be declared ultra vires while
1997 offends against any provision of the parent statute (the Act
crystal clear that sub section 5 of section 31 of the Act 1997 neither
offends against any clear cut provision of the parent statute or the
constitution nor runs against the purposes for which the Act 1997 was
and Distribution whereas sub section 5 has been added just to enable
the said plea is not worth consideration for the reason that from the
of surcharge does not fall within the domain of NEPRA. The second
Act 2008 and there is no denying the 'fact that National Assembly can
amend any law or introduce any addition therein just to cope with the
under Article 73 of the Constitution. Thus, in the instant case both the
following rule of "reading down" are missing, thus the request of the
829) in which the apex Court of the country, while highlighting the
"31. From the above case-law and the treatises, inter alia the
following principles of law are deducible:—
(i
(ii) That Courts while interpreting laws relating to
economic activities view the same with greater latitude
than the laws relating to civil rights such as freedom of
speech, religion etc., keeping in view the complexity of
economic problems which do not admit of solution
through any doctrinaire or straitjacket formula as
pointed out by Holmes, J. in one of his judgments.
(iv) .........
(v) .........
(vi) .........
(vii) .........
(viii) That while interpreting Constitutional provisions
Court should keep in mind, social setting of the country,
growing requirements of the society/nation, burning
problems of the day and the complex issues facing the
people, which the Legislature in its wisdom through
legislation seeks to solve. The judicial approach should
be dynamic rather than static, pragmatic and not
pedantic and elastic rather, than rigid. "(emphasis
provided).
that the reasons advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners do
Constitution provides that all citizens are equal before law and entitled
manner but the equality clause particularly the provision about the
equal protection of the law does not connote that all citizens shall be
citizens does not mean that all laws must apply to all the subjects or
that all subjects must have the same.rights and liabilities. The concept
of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute
protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform.
and others v. Anwarul Hag Ahmed and others (2013 SCMR 1687).
others (supra) the apex court of the country has laid law to the
following effect:-
the petitioners have argued that firstly the said surcharge has not been
•
imposed against the consumers of KESE (now K-Electric) and
and others (2011 SCMR 848), while dilating upon the question of
part of the government for the reason that different tariffs are
supply and purpose of supply. Further, the apex court of the country in
W. P. No.24076 Of 2013 --57--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
the case of M/s Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others (Supra), while
•
situated is subject to an incidence of taxation, which
results in inequality amongst holders of the same kind of
property, it is liable to be struck down on account of
infringement of the fundamental right relating to
equality."
this regard, following lines from the said judgment are of prime
importance:-
When the apex court of the country has drawn a line of distinction
electricity.
country in view of dictum laid down in the case Human Rights Case
following lines from the said judgment of the apex court of the
impugned surcharge just to abridge the gap between the subsidy being
nor unjustified.
reads as under:-
challenged any further, has attained finality. Thus, this court has been
aforementioned case.
the said argument has little value. It is of common knowledge that the
consumers who are unable to bear the day to day increase in the price
counsel for the petitioners that default on the part of consumers of one
petitioners that in terrns.of section 31(5) of the Act 1997 the executive
or to make up the difference between the actual cost and line losses of
the same is not applicable in these cases for the reason that the same is
only to be operative from the year 2014 onwards and the same has
unless the legislature has decided so, thus, the reference made in this
moment that the impugned surcharge was levied just to abridge the
gap between the actual cost of the electricity and the subsidy being
companies which have higher tariff, the same does not justify setting
aside of the impugned notifications simply for the reason that when a
to raise funds for said purpose. Further, in view of the ever changing
brethren.
the line losses and lower down price of electricity by using less
purpose first of all the government shall have to take stern action
against the persons who arei involved in electricity theft and the
after supply of the generation like line losses, theft, etc., by using
sources, the local sources of fuel like coal, natural gas etc. should be
35. Now coming to the case-law cited by learned counsel for the
inasmuch while declaring the GIDC Act 2011 as ultra vires in the
2014) the apex Court of the country has inter-alia observed as under: -
imposed without referring the matter to CCI, the same is not worth
the apex Court of the country has held that no enactment can be
declared ultra vires just for 'the reason that the same was promulgated
,t)04'
W.P. No.24076 0(2013, --66--
(Flying Cement Co. Lid. Etc. v. Govt, of Pakistan etc,)
consumers in the said judgment, thus, the same is inapplicable for the
reason that in both the imptigned notifications the Surcharge has been
was regarding tax and in view of the discussion made in the preceding
Rental Power Plants etc. (Supra) I am of the humble opinion that the
the country the same cannot riot be quoted in the present case rather
(Supra), it is observed that the same is polls apart from the present
the said judgment. Insofar as the case of Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd.
Supreme Court can entertain a question which was not raised before
the lower forum, thus, the same has no relevancy with the instant case.
(Supra) I have observed that in the said case the apex Court of the
and others, M/s Azgard Nine Ltd. and Abdul Majid and another
cases revolved around difference between the words "tax" and "fee"
nor fee, the said judgment is of no help to the petitioners. In the cases
W.P. No.24076 Of2013. --68--
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. Etc v. Govt. of Pakistan etc)
apex Court of the country has inter-alia observed that equal protection
through Finance Act 2008, Thus the same cannot be dubbed as having
been levied without due process of law. As far as case of M/s Elahi
Cotton Mills Ltd. and others (Supra) is concerned, the same instead of
In the matter of Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others (Supra) the
regarding power of CCI to determine tariff, it has been held that CCI
different stands polls apart from the instant case. Insofar as the case
W.P. No.24076 Of2013, --69--
(Flvine Cement Co. Ltd. Etc. v. Govt. of Pakistan etc.).
concerned, the preposition involved therein was qua the mala fides on
pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners in these matters, the
said case also stands distinguished. The case of Haji Abdullah Khan
and others (Supra), has not the remotest connectivity with the case in
hand as the said case had arisen out of civil proceedings. The case of
instant matter. The matter of Syed Feroze Shah Ghillani and others
thus, the same is quite distinguishable from the instant case. In the
case of Exide Pakistan Ltd. (Supra) the subject was the powers of the
Cantonment Board to levy Shop Board Fee whereas in the instant case
the situation being entirely different the same is not applicable here.
The case of Sanofi Aventis Pakistan Ltd. and others (Supra) deals
legislate qua a subject but in the instant matter when the item of
has no relevancy with the case in hand. The judgments in the cases of
Corporation Ltd. and another and Naseem Mehmood (Supra) are not
whether the NEPRA has the power to determine Surcharge, thus, the
on this court.
• 224m
G.F, • ' OV—SHAILAT ALI
• • JtIVE
S
Schedule-B
• - Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013.
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. etc. Versus Govt of Pakistan etc.)
Aar
257 24330-11 Pakistan Flour Mills Association v. WAPDA etc.
258 25267-11 M/s Mohid Industries v. WAPDA etc.
259 2524911 Abdul Rashid Weaving Mills etc. v. WAPDA etc.
260 ' 25594-11 M/s Nizami Wire Industries v. WAPDA etc.
261. • 5699-11 Nisar. Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
262 . 25599-11 M/s Royal PolytexInduitries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
263. 25656-11 Chiragh Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
264 26081-11 M/s Shaheen Stone Grinding Industries v. WAPDA etc.
265 25665-11 Cool Point Industries v. WAPDA etc.
266 25714-11 M/s Latif Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
267 25702-11 M/s Pakistan Vinyl Industries v. WAPDA etc.
268 25798-11 M/s Unexo Labs (Pvt.):ILtd. v. WAPDA etc.
269 25938-11 . M/s Al-Karm Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v.. WAPDA etc.
'270 25796-11 M/s Usman Cotton Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v, WAPDA etc.
271 25879-11 Al-Madina Steel Mills etc. v. WAPDA etc.
272 25811-11 M/s Coca Cola Beverages Pakistan Ltd: v. WAPDA etc.
273 25805-11 M/s Shaheen Gana Factory etc, v. WAPDA etc.
274 25849-11 M/s Rahim Enterprises v. WAPDA etc.
275 25901-11 Ch. Azam Ali v. WAPDA etc.
276 . 26033-11 M/s Yasir Ikram Rice Food Farm etc. v. WAPDA 'etc.
277 25867-11 M/s Angora Textile Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
278 26101-11 M/s Rehan Enterprises v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
279 25924-11 Tabish Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
280 25836-11 M/s Al Badar Engineering v. WAPDA etc.
281 2.6050-11 M/s Miraj Din Steel v. WAPDA etc.
282 25712-11 Chenab Rice Mills etc. v. WAPDA etc.
283 26391-11 M/s Azhar Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
284 25981-11 Lessee Of Lasani Cold Storage Lahore v. WAPDA etc.
285 ' 2056-11 M/s Arunol Paper Mills v. WAPDA etc.
286 26058-11 Naveed Agencies etc. v. WAPDA etc.
287 26082-11 M/s Shaheen Grinding Industries v. WAPDA etc.
288 26102-11 Diamond Tyres Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
289 26224-11 Kashif Mehmood v. WAPDA etc.
290 26379-11 M/s Aslam Textile v. WAPDA etc,
291 26526-11 Babur Sher CNG etc. v. WAPDA etc.
292 26674-11 Ghous'Fibers v. Government of Pakistan etc.
293 26530-11 Muhammad Akram etc. v. WAPDA etc.
294 26139-11 M/s S.J. Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. WAPDA etc.
295 26361-11 Maqbool Usman v. WAPDA etc.
296 26179-11 Shakargang Mills Ltd. etc. v. WAPDA etc.
297 26431-11 Arzoo Textile v. WAPDA etc.
298 26378-11 M/s C.A Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc.
299 26506-11 AAA Doublers Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
300 26508-11 Facto Cement v. WAPDA etc.
301 26510-11 M/s Three Star Hosiery Mills v. WAPDA etc.
302 26768-11 Umar Ijaz Textile eta. v. WAPDA etc.
303 26750-11 Umair Tariq Butt v. WAPDA etc.
304 26586-11 Tariq Nisar v. WAPDA etc.
305 26688-11 M/s Rafique Spinning Mills v. WAPDA etc.
306 26602-11 M/s Makka Cold Storage etc. v. WAPDA etc.
:307 )26.889-11 Muhammad Shoib etc. v. WAPDA etc.
308 26943-11 M/s Malees Cafe v. WAPDA
Schedule-B:
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013. 71Page
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. eta Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
six
Si: : mile f . ' a'64
1.'4*fti k '' e ga. ," AiRiet A
gOlOt !OWL
413'. .513g!'712 •Noor Muhammad v. F.O.P. etc.
' 414 :53,312 . Maqbool Hussain Shah v. WAPDA
415 . $.14542 Habib .Ur Rehman etc. V. Chief Executive MEPCO etc.
416 534142 Rana Muhammad Farooq v. WAPDA
417, 504342 Zafar Iqbal etc. v. WAPDA etc.
418 . 5254412. • Malik Haq Nawaz v. WAPDA •
419 5261. 12 Muhammad Saleem Shahid v. F.O.P. etc.
420 :7123-12• Melunood Ashraf Khan v. WAPDA
421 7036-12 Muhammad Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
699142 Faisal Asad Textile Mills v. WAPDA
421 6948-12 M/s Fatima Enterprises Lid. v. WAPDA etc.
424 6863-12 Talal Ice Factory v. WAPDA
425 6861-12 Muhammadi Glass Ice Factory v. WAPDA
•426 , 6860-12 Arshad Abbas Ice Factory v. WAPDA
427 6852-12 Muhammad Glass Ice Factory v. WAPDA
• 446 6802-12
447 6785-12
448. 6704-12
449 6811-12
450 6810-12
Rana Shahid Niaz v. NEPRA etc.
Muhammad Saleem Anjum v. WAPDA
Sahibzada Javed Iqbal v. Ministry Of Power etc.
Abdul Hakeem Floor Mills v. WAPDA
Sadat Ice Factory v. WAPDA
451 6677-12 Mis Asim Qaisar & Co. v. F.O.P. etc.
452 6668-12 M/s Zumar-E-Hira Tours v. WAPDA
453 6801-12 Pir Kabir Flour Mills v. WAPDA ,
4'54 6687-12 Yasrab Ice Factory etc. v. WAPDA etc. .
455 6684-12 Hussain Baldish etc. v. WAPDA
456 668812 M/s K.A. Gases (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA
457 ' 6800,12 Muhammad Naveed Akhtar v. WAPDA
458 •6799-12 Kausar Ice Factory v. WAPDA
459 6798-12 Madina Ice Factory v. WAPDA
460' 6796-12 Malik Mushtaq Ice Factory v. WAPDA
461 6786 -12 M/s Rehbar CNG Station v. WAPDA
462 ,1, 66*12 Fazal-Ur-Reiman Ghee Mills v. WAPDA
463 6664-12 Iftikhar Ahmad Professccr v. WAPDA
464 6663-12 M/s Fraz Fiber v. WAPDA -.4
Schedule-B. 10IPge -4i 1
Writ Petition NO.24076 Of 2013.
(Flying' Cement:Co. Ltd. etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
S
Schedule-C
- Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013.
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
•
30 24677-13 M/s Fatima Enterprises Spinning Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
31 27597-13 M/s Ahmad Textile etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
32 27697-13 Ibrahim Dyeing & Textile Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
33 27856-13 Farooq Fayaz Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
34 27768-13 Muhammad Aslam Steel v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
35 29686-13 U.S. Denim v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
36 29302-13 Popular Food Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
37 30460-13 Munir Power Looms v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
38 1825-14 Ch. Steel Mills etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
39 23863-13 Munir Steel Casting etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
40 2217-13 Amin Afzal v. Federation Of.Pakistan
41 2166-13 M/s Best Way Cement v. Federation of Pakistan
42 2204-13 M/s Lafarge Cement Co. v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
43 2239-13 M/s Texila Cotton Mills etc. v. Govt. Of Pakistan etc.
44 2253-13 Rizwan Textile Mills v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
45 2495-13 M/s Texila Cotton Mill's etc. v. Federation Of Pakistan etc.
46 2531-13 M/s Disposable Utensils Industries v. IESCO etc.
47 29926-13 Haq Brothers etc. v. WAPDA etc.
48 26860-13 Chenab Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Schedule-C.
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013. 2IPage
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd eta Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
- Sr:# Oise
101 27308-13 Bilal Fibers Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Amin Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. Federation•of Pakistan etc.
102 26909-13
103 26765-13 Muhammad Faroocr v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Kamalia Steel Furnace etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
104 26893-13
105 27092-13 M/s Good Luck Flour Mills 41. Federation of Pakistan etc. '
106 27093-13 M/s Adil Rice Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
107 24536-13 M/s Na Steel Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
108 26185-13 Kw. Shahbaz Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Monnoo Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
109 26669-13
110 26899-13 Nauman Shakeel v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
111 13213-13 Phono Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
112 24363-13 Muhammad Jawaid Sharif etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
113 26694-13 M/s Lucky Steel Foundry (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
114 26766-13 M/s Malik & Sons etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
115 28755-13 M/s Rizwan Steel Furnace v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
116 29358-13 M/s Roshan Steel Furnace v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
117 23867-13 Steel Innovators (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Siddique Iron Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
118 23969-13
119 245-13 Insaf Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
120 252-13 M/s Ali Steel Furnace v. WAPDA etc.
121 23908-13 Idrees Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
122 23955-13 M/s Shoaib Steel Mills v. Federation of Pakistan.
123 26613-13 Arsam Pulp and Paper Board Industries v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
•
W rit
(Flying Cement Co., Ltd. etc. Versus akistan etp,.)
.,
1g #4100.4WR41.7.,..
. ., . mi. op.
Ilyag,thatlia:.and .,R.O.
11161-1 I .. M/s • Sitara Chemical v. WAPDA etc.
..
Advocates. ,
, ..
- ' • IvI/s .Mian Mebtadod414s '
2 - .11162-11 Gulshan. Spinning v. WAPDA etc. . . , -- . ' -,--.--..i '
Ms. koohi Sttlek...Ai0Cit `'..-
, tes. 4
14 16807-11
etc. i' -. .--Ms.;;;RdiiiiiiS6.18b&"
), iio'■ '
, WS '
anMeadd ' ail '
NTP Gelatine (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA - ' • '-' . . 0. . -q.t., =
22 16891-11
Ms.'R.ciOhi'Salehh;, dVOcates. - .,
M/s Kareem Steel Industry v. M/s,M.ati Meli no6 & '. an' '
.. . •
23 16892-11
WAPDA :Ms'adohi.Saleha;AdvoCate -
• 46
47
17472-11
17530-11
Azgard 9 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
Mian Muhammad Yaseen Saeed v.
WAPDA etc. •
Muhammad Saeed Ch. v. WAPDA
MTh Mian Mehmood Rashid and
Ms. Roohi Salelia, AdVOCates.
Mr. Hafeez ur RehmanC
Advocate
Mr. Hafeez ur Rehmat Ch:
48 17531-11 Advocate
etc.
Ch. Muhammad Javaid v. WAPDA Mr. Hafeez ur Rahman Ch:
49 17532-11 etc. Advocate
Ayaz Textile Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA Nemo.
50 17533-11 etc.
17536-11 Hajra Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
51
Khalid Shafique Spinning v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
52 17877-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Achrbeatei.
M/s Mian Mehinood Rashid and
53 17878-11 Nishat Mills Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,AdvoCates.
Masood Spinning Mills v ,. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehmood Ras,id and
54 17887-11 Ms. Roohi Saleba, Advdea'tes.
etc.
Mahmood Textile Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehinood RaSlaid and
55 17886-11 etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advo6ated'..'
•
chedule-A.
Writ PettitOn 1.s1.9.2.4076 Of2.01.3.
(Flying Cement Co 4tdirete..:Kersu.s. Govt. of Pakistan etc
‘4740,172g:
M/s Mian MehmoodMas
86 18682-11 Afco Metals etc. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. .Roohi Saleha, AdVodates.
M/s Mian MehmoocRashdand
87 • 18683-11 Spincot Textile etc. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,-.MybeatesL
New Shalimar Steel etc. v. WAPDA Mis Mian MOtii6641'14§4i':and
88 18684-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha, amOba
etc.
89 18875-11 M/s Chenab Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
90 18876-11 M/s Pak China v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Mian MehmoodRashid'and
91 1.8514-11 Arain Fibers Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Sgeha, Advocates: :
M/s Mian MelamoOdiRa.shidand
92. 18515-11 Suleman Spinning Mills N;'. WAPDA Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates..
Rahim Bakhsh Textile Mills. v. M/s Mian MelamooOtashicVand
93 18516-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVocates..
WAPDA
M/s Mien MelamoodRa.shid'ind
94 18517-11 Arain Mills v. WAPDA Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates..
95 18518-11 Al-Hamd Corp: v. WAPI5A. etc. Mr. Mustafa Katnal.AdvoCate.
M/s Mian Mehreoo&Rashicl and
96 18519-11 Arain Textile v. WAPDA.etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates:
Ahmad Hassan Textile Mills Ltd. v. M/s:Mian Mehmoo&RashicLand
97 18532-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha;"Aktsideates.
Ellcot Spinning Mills Ltd., etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmoo 'Rashid and
98 18750-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Adiocates.'
M/s Fiber Dyeing (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
99 18724-11
WAPDA, etc.
M/s Cool Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
100 18660-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Shaheen Paper and Board Nemo.
101 18662-11 Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Muhammadi Paper and Board Nemo.
102 18663-11 Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v.' WAPDA etc.
M/s New Modern Steel Industries v. Mr. Zulqarnainlianaid'Advocate.
103 18661-11 WAPDA etc.
104 18667-11 M/s Siddique Sons v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
105 18668-11 M/s Al-Riaz v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
106 18669-11 M/s Al-Riaz v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
107 18670-11 M/s Sharmaine v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s King Embroidery v. WAPDA Nemo.
108 18671-11 etc.
109 18733-11 M/s HK Steel Mills v. WAPDA, etc. Mr. Zulqamaiia Hamid Advocate
M/s Imdad Hussain Re-Rolling Mills Mr. Zulqarnain Haruki Advdcate
110 18731-11 v: WAPDA, etc.
Barkat Textile Mills etc. v. WAPDA. Mr. Mustafa Kamal Advocate
111 18807-11 etc.
M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
112 18854-11 Fine Gas Co. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha; AdVocates.. -:
M/s Mian Mehmood Raphidiand
113 18855-11 Al Textile Mills v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,,Advdcates..
M/s Mian Mehmood1shtd and;
114 18856-11 Shan Steel v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha41/406cates:
M/s Mian MehmoOcI14shidiand
115 18857-11 Abu Bakar Textile v. WAPDA etc. • Ms. Roohi Saleha,AdWoctitea.
M/i Mian 1\itehmood:f4shid1.
p4 d
116 18858-11 Ayesha Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms: Roohi.Sgeha, Advdcats^.
Acro Spinning & Weaving v. M/s Mian 4hidfiand
117 19085-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No.29076.01: 2013.
(Flying Cement Co: Ltd. eta Versus Govt. of Pakistan eta).'
IV: Is tood4
Sally Textile Mills v. WAPDA, etc. s. ROPE Saleha, kciv,Veiiek
M/s MianMehmood Ra.shid,sh
19086-11 -.Ms. Roohi Sale
M/s Mian Mel*id454:;
19087-11 .. Imperial Textile v. WAPDA Ms. Roohi
M/s Mian /vIeliMoodi*hid444
19088.11 Dg Khan Cement v. WAPDA etc, ;Ms. Roohi Saleh.
19270-11 Zahid Jee. Textile v. WAPDA Nemo.
M/s Mian Mehinood Rg.shichuid:i
19237-11 Diamond Fabrics v. WAPDA Ms. Roohi Sal AegiCates....
Wisal Kemal Fabrics Ltd. v. M/s MianMehrhoOd Rashidi,aud
19238-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Sale.h. .Advocates:
Ali Akbar Spinning Mills v. M/s Mian Melirriobd 4Shidyalid !
19239-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha; AdVocates.. '
M/s Ali Akbar Textile v. WAPDA
19274-11 etc.
19139-11 Bilal Textile v..WAPDA etc.
19140-11 Sangam Steel v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
18935-11 M/s City Steel UAE v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
M/s Mian Mehinood
19367-11 Service Industries v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Adiopatei;,
City Tower Management v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehinood
19369-11 etc. Ms. RiDohi Saleha,
Blessed Textile Mills etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood RAShid-andj
19371-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advoeaies.
M/s Mian MehMOod Rashid
19373-11 Ms. Roohi Satan', ActVocCates:0
M/s Mian Meh nood`Raslud
19375-11 Amin Textile . Mills v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roobi Satolik Adiroea
M/s Maqbool Textile Mills v. Mr. Azliar SiddiqUe=
19387-11 . WAPDA etc.
M/s Allah Wassaya Textile Mills v.
WAPDA etc.
M/s Ma. bool Textile v. WAPDA Nemo.
19386-11
M/s Allah Wassya Textile Mills v. Nemo.
19388-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Allah Wasaya Mills v. WAPDA
19390-11 etc.
M/s Mian Mehmood Rahjdr,
19372-11 Blessed Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha .Advocates.:
M/s Mian Mehmood RisAdfand
19374-11 Shahtaj Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha AdVo' ales.;
Faisal Spinning Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian MehmoodRaghid,and
19368-11 Ms. Roohi Saletr; :Advocates.
etc. and
Bhanero Textile Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mellinood
19370-11 Ms. Roohi Saleh ,
etc.
M/s Mehmooda MqbooP Mills v.
19389-11 WAPDA
Nishat Chunian Ltd. etc. v. Govt. Of,
19642-11 Pakistan etc.
M/s Mien Mehmood
19633-11 Samin Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi sale AbO:iites;:
dirdiEgurc
anMei:mood
149 20506-11 M/s Habib Steel v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi SaIeha., AVdates.
i.
• • -•
25811-11 Naiieed,AdvdCate:
Nano:
25805-11
Schedule-A
Writ Petition No.24076 012013.
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd: Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.
,f QR.11,
MagEr ,_„ ..,.a.,,.s....
... Mis.Rahim Enterprises v., WAPDA
274 25849-11 Nemo
e tc. I
Mis Mian Mehmood Rashid and
275 25901-11 Ch. Azam Ali v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi SalehkAtbk - 4tei.7 '' '
M/s Yasir. Ikram Rice Food Farm etc:- Nemo. r.
276. 26033-11 I
v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Angora Textile Ltd. v. WAPDA .
277 25867-11 Nemo. ,
etc.
M/s Rehan Enterprises v. Govt. Of
278 26101-11 • Palustan etc. Nemo. •
Tabish Steel Furnace v. WAPDA Mr. Shahzad Ahmad Diiirani
279 25924-11 Advocate.
etc. 1 -
M/s Al Badar Engineering v. Nemo.
280 25836-11
WAPDA etc.
281 26050-1.1 M/s Miraj Din Steel v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
Chenab Rice Mills etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
282 25712-11
etc.
M/s Azhar Corporation (Pvti) Ltd. v. Nemo.
283 26391-11 WAPDA etc. •
Lessee Of Lasani Cold Storage Nemo.
284 25981-11 Lahore v. WAPDA etc.
M/s Anmol Paper Mills v. WAPDA Mr. Shahzad Ahmad Duirani,
285 26056-11 Advocate.
etc.
Naveed Agencies etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
286 26058-11 etc.
M/s Shaheen Grinding Industries v. Nemo.
287 26082-11
WAPDA etc.
288 26102-11 Diamond Tyres Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
289 26224-11 Kashif Melunood v. WAPDA etc. Nemb.
M/s Sharjeel Ijaz and Adtan
290 26379-11 M/s Aslam Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ahmad, Advocates.
Babur Sher CNG etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
291 26526-11 etc.
Ghous Fibers v. Government of Nemo.
292 26674-11 Pakistan etc.
Muhammad Akram etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
293 26530-11 etc. .
M/s S.J. Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Nemo.
294 26139-11 WAPDA etc. •,
M/s Mian Mebmood Rashid and
295 26361-11 Maqbool Usman v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVOCates., :'
Shakargang Mills Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid.nd::
296 26179-11 WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha.,-AcivOCates.
M/s Mian Mehmood RaShid'and
297 26431-11 Arzoo Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdvoCites.
M/s C.A Textile Mills v. WAPDA Mian Muhammad Hussairi‘Chotiya.
298 26378-11 etc. Advocate. :
M/s Mian MehMood RaShid and
299 26506-11 AAA Doublers Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha,,Advaattei.. „
M/s Mian MehinoOd Rasudaad's
300 26508-11 Facto Cement v. WAPDA etc. ,
Ms. Roohi Saleha, .AdiragteS. ),
M/s Three Star Hosiery Mills v. Nemo. ,
301 26510-11 WAPDA etc. •
Umar Ijaz Textile etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
302 26768-11
etc.
303 26750-11 Umair Tariq BLitt v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
304 26586-11 Tariq Nisar v. WAPDA etc. Nemo. , _A_
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition Nii24076 Of 2013.
(Flying.Cement:co. Lrd etc. ; Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.
4*.'11,14ii14, 4'tli. _ , ,,
M/s Ra5que Spinning Mills v."- 014eltaiibcV SOU ''
305 26688-11 , Ms. RoohilSalelia, Aii, tIcii4t:
WAPDA etc.
M/s Makka Cold;Storage.etc. v. Nemo.
306 26602-11 ' a
WAPDA etc.
MuhamMad'Shoib etc. v.. WAPDA ' 'Nemo.
307 2688§-11 .
etc. •
M/s Mien IvIehtiood , and
308 26943-11 M/s Malees Cafe v. WAPDA Ms. Roohi Saleha, AditOetiiii.. '
M/s Dandot Cement Co. etc. v. Nemo.
309 26862-11. WAPDA etc.
M/s Shahbaz Garments (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nemo.
310 26692-11 WAPDA. etc.
M/s Mushtaq Enterprises v. WAPDA M/s Sharjeelijaz:and Aiinart,
311 26736-11 Ahmad, Advocates.
etc.
Kausar Processing Industries v. M/s Khurram SbabbaZi!13-utt and ,
312 26519-11 WAPDA etc. MirzaBilal Zafar AdvOCates.
Jan Muhammad Cold Storage v. Nemo. .:.
313 26804-11 WAPDA etc. '
M/s Yasmin Weaving v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehmood - hicLabil
314 26908-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha,;AOOiate§.;.
etc.
Arfeen Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. V. . Nemo.
315 26962-11 G.O.P etc.
M/s Jeea Textile Mills v. WAPDA Mr. Khurram Shahbaz-T: 13 rit ,,
Butt
316 27063-11 etc. Advocate.
Lalazar Spinning Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
317 27017-11 etc. -. - '
318 27108-11 Sayyed Engineers v. WAPDA etc. Nenio.' t . -
M/s Zamindar Cherdicals,v. Nemo.
319 27109-11 WAPDA etc. •
320 27107-11 Sayyed Stationary v. WAPDA etc. Nemo. -L
M/s Pioneer Board Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
321 26808-11 etc.
• 1.1 IT
s
....• .....
er o v.
322 26809-11 Nemo.
--
WAPDA etc.
Madina Enterprises etc. v. WAPDA Nemo.
323 26525-11 etc.
Muhammad Shakeel Weaving Nemo::;
324 26601-11 Factory etc. v. WAPDA etc.
Kohinoor Textile Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
325' 27755-11 etc.
M/s Al-Quraish Paper Industries Mr. Abdul Waheed •
326 27745-11 (Pvt.) Ltd. v. WAPDA btc. Advocate.
M/s Al-Quraish Pet Bottles (Pvt.) Mr. Abdul Waheed Habib .
327 27744-11 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Advocate.
M/s Lasani Fiber Industries (Pvt.) Mr. Abdul Waheed Habib!
328 27831-11 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc. Advodate.
329 28031-11 Nauman Shakil etc. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
330 27989-11 Insaf Plastic etc. v. WAPDA etc.
331 28226-11 Khalid Petroleum v. WAPDA etc. Nemo. -
White Pearl Rice Mills Ltd. v. Nenio.
332 28339-11 WAPDA etc.
M/s Combine' Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ch. Initiaz Alimad
333 28453-11 Ltd. v. WAPDA etc.
Muhammad Ijaz Alam v. WAPDA NeniO.
334 28361-11 etc.
M/s Mirza Youths Foundry etc. v.
335 28611-11 WAPDA etc.
Schedule-A:
Writ. Petition No.24076 .0f2013. 12 P a: g .e
(FlyingGement Co, 1*1.-'etc. Versus Govt. off akistan eta)
•
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No.24076 Of2013.
..
(Flying Cement Co Ltd etc Versus Govt. ofPolcistan etc.
,,, _
Sr.# Case No Title l' i ,,,litn T.:)(i.
Malik Muhammad Ashraf v.
395 23542-13 Nemo.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
Ali Akbar Spinning Mills v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid.. and
396 23994-13 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Hammad Industry etc. v. Mr. Fiaz Ahmad Khan 13aloch
397 24381-13 Advocate.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Arshad Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd.
398 24765-13 Mian Khalid Habib Elahi Advocate.
etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Sargodha Jute Mills Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
399 24832-1 3 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
Arslan Yaqoob etc. v. Federation of
400 24868-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Chennab Ltd. v. Federation of Rana Ali Akbar Khan Advocate.
401 25329-13
Pakistan etc. •
M/s Usman Nawab, H.M. Adil
Chakwal Textile Mills v. Federation
402 25354-13 Sikandar and Faiz Rasool Khan
of Pakistan etc.
Jalbani Advocates.
M/s Sharjeel Ijaz, Adnan Ahmad
Chemicals Ltd. v. Federation
403 24111-13 and
of Pakistan etc. Abdul Waheed Habib. Advocates.
Khawaja Spinning Mills v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
404 24127-13 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
405 24192-13 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
ICC Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
406 23333-13 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
of Pakistan etc.
Omer Spinning Mills Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
407 23094-13 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
F.O.P etc.
Madina Steel Industries v. Federation M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
408 23100-13 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
of Pakistan etc.
Shaheen Paper and Board Industry Mr. Zulqarnain Hameed Advocate.
409 24067-13
etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Usman Navvab, H.M. Adil
Kohinoor Spinning Mills v. Sikandar and Faiz Rasool Khan
410 25406-13
Federation of Pakistan etc. Jalbani Advocates.
M/s Abu Bakar Anees Textile etc. v. Rana Ali Akbar Khan Advocate.
411 24820-13
Federation of Pakistan etc.
. - .. .. .. . 1 TT • _ /...11_ .- ■
.!- ....
Sr.#
Wit
Zulficlar Siddique v. Federation of Nemo.
450 Pakistan etc.
Basra Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mr. Khalil Ur Rehman, Advocate.
451 27135-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
Shahid Ahmad etp. v. Federation of Nemo.
452 27335-13 Pakistan etc.
Magna Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Mr. Khalil Ur Rehman, Advocate.
453 27372-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
Muhammad Sarwar v. Federation of Nemo.
454 27258-13 Pakistan etc.
M/s Adil Steel Furnace etc. v. F.O.P Mr. Mustafa Kamal Advocate.
455 24223-13
etc.
Crescent Sugar Mills v. Federation of Nemo.
456 26492-13 Pakistan etc.
Makkah Steel Mills v. Federation of Nemo.
457 27504-13 Pakistan etc.
Zulaikha Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
Barrister Usman Rashid Cheema
458 24374-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
Advocate.
Fast Steel Casting v. Federation of
Pakistan etc.
Nemo.
459 24080-13
M/s Adrian Ahmad and Sharjeel
Shahpur Textile Mills Ltd. v.
460 26495-13 l'az Advocates.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
Ittehad Chemicals Ltd. v. Federation Mr. Azhar Siddique Advocate.
461 24082-13 of Pakistan etc.
1-laji Muhammad Ali etc. v. Nemo.
462 24726-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
Saraj Din etc. v. Federation of Nemo.
463 24743-13 Pakistan etc.
Nazeer Paper Board v. Federation of
464 28113-13 Pakistan etc.
Faisal Spinning Company v. Nemo.
465 25053-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
Afzal v. Federation of Pakistan etc. Nemo.
466 27306-13
AA Paper (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Mr. Khalil Ur Rehman, Advocate.
467 26890-13 Pakistan etc.
M/s S.T. Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Nemo.
468 26717-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
Nishat Dairy (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation
26805-13
Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
469 of Pakistan etc.
Jahangir Hussain etc. v. Federation Nemo.
470 29881-13 of Pakistan etc*.
Husnain Spinning Mills v. Ch. Fareed Anwer Advocate.
471 24365-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Adrian Ahmad and Sharjeel
Taymur Spinning Mills v. Federation
24587-13 raz Advocates.
472 of Pakistan etc.
M/s Kamal Steel Re-Rolling Mills
(Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan Nemo.
26595-13
etc.
Muhammad Alma etc. v. Federation Nemo.
474 24459-13 of Pakistan etc.
M/s Usman Steel Foundry etc. v. Nemo.
475 26663-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
Shoaib Salman Textile Mills etc. v. Nemo. .
476 24050-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Khalid Siraj Textile Mills etc. v. Nemo.
27065-13 Federation of Pakistan etc.
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No, 24076 01'2013. 1`1'115 :
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
).'.\(4°
M/s Al Madina Steel Furnace v. t
478 27020-13 Nemo.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Ashraf Steel v. Federation of
479 27091-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Qadri Brother (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v.
480 26716-13 Nemo.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
,
Sajid Qayum v. Federation of Mr: Muhammad Mohsin Virk
481 27068-13
Pakistan etc. Advocate. ,
M/s Zia Brothers v. Federation of Mr. Khurram 'Shahbaz Butt
482 27095-13
Pakistan etc. Advocate.
Lucky Packaging Ltd. v. Federation
483 27052-13 Rana Ali Akbar Khan Advocate.
of Pakistan etc.
A.H.M Enterprises v. Federation of
484 24574-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Shamas Textile Mills etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
485 23729-13
Federation of Pakistan etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Bilal Fibers Ltd. v. Federation of
486 27308-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Amin Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and , .,
487 26909-13
Federation of Pakistan etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Muhammad Farooq v. Federation of
488 26765-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
M/s Kamalia Steel Furnace etc. v.
489 26893-13 Nemo.
Federation of Pakistan etc. ,,
M/s Good Luck Flour Mills v. Mr. Khurram Shahbaz Butt
490 27092-13
Federation of Pakistan etc. Advocate.
M/s Adil Rice Mills v. Federation of
491 27093-13 Nemo:
Pakistan etc.
M/s Na Steel Industries v. Federation
492 24536-13 Nemo.
of Pakistan etc.
Kw. Shahbaz Ahmad v. Federation
493 26185-13 Nemo.
of Pakistan etc.
Monnoo Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. v. M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and .
494 26669-13
Federation of Pakistan etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Nauman Shakeel v. Federation of
495 26899-13 Nemo.
Pakistan etc.
Phono Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
496 28112-12 Mr. Nasir Ahmad Awan, Advocate.
. , WAPDA etc.
497 2735-11 M/s Central Associates v, WAPDA Nemo.
Phono Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. v.
498 13213-13 Nemo.
WAPDA etc.
499 6507-1 I M/s Fatima Floor Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
500 11033-11 Shoaib Paper Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
501 11034-H Qaiser Shabbir v. WAPDA Nemo.
Muhammad Jawaid Shari f etc. v.
502 24363-13 Nemo.
Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Lucky Steel Foundry (Pvt.) Ltd. Ch. Muhammad Mohsin Vir •
503 26694-13 Advocate.
v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
M/s Malik & Sons etc. v. Federation Mian Muhammad Hussain Chotiya
504 26766-13
of Pakistan etc. Advocate.
M/s Mian Mehmood Rishid and"
505 17473-11 Nishat Mills v. WAPDA etc.
Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocate,
D.S Industries Ltd. etc. v. WAPDA
506 20976-11 Mr. Mustafa Kama' Advocate.
etc.
H.A. Haq Spinning Mills v. WAPDA
507 21400-11 Mr. Mustafa Karnal AdvOCate..
etc.
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No.24076 Of 2013.
(Flying Cement Co. Lid etc. Versus Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
Sr.# Case No
M/s Abdul Wasay Flour Mills v. M/s KhurramShahliaz sfgtt:ap
508 23632-11 WAPDA etc. Mirza Bilal Zafar. Advocates.
Sarwar Rubber Industries v. Nemo.
509 23872-11 WAPDA etc.
Zaman Paper & Board Mills v. Nemo.
510 24039-11 WAPDA etc.
Muhammad Sadiq Weaving Factory Nein°.
511 26392-11 etc. v. WAPDA etc.
Reliance Weaving Mills v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
512 7947-11 Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
etc.
M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
513 6862-11 Fazal Cloth Mill v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
M/s Mian Mehrnood Raahid and
514 6866-11 Gulistan Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates..
M/s Mian Mehmood Rashid and
515 6867-11 Gulshan Spinning v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdvoCates.
M/s Mian MelunoodRashid and
516 6868-11 Gulshan Spinning v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, Advocates.
Fazal Rehman Fabric v. WAPDA M/s Mian Mehmood-Rashid and';
517 6869-11
etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdvbeateS..
M/s Mian Mehmood-RaShid and
518 6870-11 Ahmad Fine Textile v. WAPDA etc. Ms. Roohi Saleha, AdVocates.
519 5004-12 Ch. Saghir Ahmad v. WAPDA Nemo.
Muhammad Mansha etc. v. Nemo.
520 5408-12 Federation of Pakistan. etc.
Sher Muhammad etc. v. Chairman Nemo.
521 5459-12 WAPDA etc.
Amzad Javed v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
522 5517-12
Syed Asghar Raza Girdazi v. Nemo.
523 5643-12 WAPDA etc.
Shadab Ice Factory v. Federation Of Nemo.
524 6564-12 Pakistan etc.
525 5331-12 Muhammad Ali v. F.O.P. etc. Nemo.
526 5334-12 Abdul Rehman v. WAPDA Nemo.
527 5338-12 Noor Muhammad v. F.O.P. etc. Nemo.
Maqbool Hussain Shah v. WAPDA Nemo.
528 5339-12
Habib Ur Rehman etc. v. Chief Nemo.
529 5345-12 Executive MEPCO etc.
Rana Muhammad Farooq v. Nemo.
530 5341-12 WAPDA
5043-12 Zafar Iqbal etc. v. WAPDA etc. Nemo.
531
Malik Haq Nawaz v. WAPDA Nemo.
532 5254-12
Muhammad Saleem Shahid v. F.O.P. Nemo.
533 5261-12 etc.
7123-12 Mehmood AshrafKhan v. WAPDA Nemo.
534
Muhammad Ashraf v. Federation of Nemo.
535 7036-12 Pakistan etc.
536 6991-12 Faisal Asad Textile Mills v. WAPDA Nemo.
M/s Fatima Enterprises Ltd. v. Nemo.
537 6948-12 WAPDA etc.
6863-12 Talal Ice Factory v. WAPDA Nemo.
538
Muhammadi Glass Iceitctory v. Nemo.
539 6861-12 WAPDA
Arshad Abbas,Ice Factory v. Nemo.
540 6860-12 WAPDA
Schedule-A.
Writ Petition No. 241076 Of 2013.
(Flying Cement Co. Ltd. etc. Versus ,Govt. of Pakistan etc.)
.
Shujaat AKKhan)
Judge
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
P76.
W.P. No. of 2013
• 6
7.
The Central Power Purchase Agency (CPPA) through its
Managing Director WAPDA House, Lahore.
The Faisalabad Electric Supply Company through its Chief
Executive, Faisalabad.
8. The Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) through its
General Manager, PIA Tower, Lahore.
9. The Director, Customer Support Services, FESCO / LESCO,
Faisalabad / Lahore.
10. The concerned XEN, Sub Division, FESCO/LESCO,
Faisalabad/Lahore.
11. The concerned Revenue Officer, Sub Division, FESCO /
LESCO, Faisalabad / Lahore.
RESPONDENTS
•