ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGE

1. For orders on CMA No. 4992/2015

2. For orders on CMA No. 4993/2015

3. For orders on office objection.

4. For hearing of main case.

5. For hearing of CMA No. 1762/2014

18.11.2015

Mr. Muhammad Najeeb Jamali, advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Abid S. Zuberi, advocate alongwith Mr. Ayan Mustafa Memon,

advocate for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Asim Iqbal, advocate alongwith Mr. Farmanullah, advocate for Respondent No. 4.

---------------------

Being aggrieved by the appellant’s grant of license to Respondent No. 2 for the sale of electricity to Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 1638/2013. Injunctive order was obtained against Respondents No. 2 and 3 after taking tentative view of various provisions of the NEPRA Act, 1997. The order of the learned Single Judge is impugned in this appeal. It was pointed out during the course of arguments that now Respondents No. 2 and 3 have merged and become one entity, therefore the issue in the suit has become infructuous as the very same company which generates power also consumes the same and the issue of sale by one to another is no more alive. This appeal is being pressed by the appellant only for the reason that findings given in Paragraphs Nos. 12 and 17 of the impugned order may not affect the appellant in the future legal proceedings involving interpretation of the provisions of Sections 21, 22 and 25 of the NEPRA Act, 1997 as the interpretation of these provisions in this case may prevent the appellant from granting licenses to any other entity in future.

We are of the view that as the impugned order has been passed on an injunction application, the findings of the same are tentative in nature. In any future litigation it would be open to both the parties to agitate their respective stands on the applicability of Sections 21, 22 and 25 of NEPRA Act, 1997. The tentative views that have been taken in the impugned order relating to said sections will not come in the way of the appellant.

This appeal alongwith the pending applications stands disposed of in the above terms.

CHIEF JUSTICE

J U D G E

Zahid Baig