ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court has ordered the Punjab government to recommend name for a member of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) so that it could be completed.

According to the NEPRA Act, 1997, the Authority comprises Chairman and four members from all the four provinces. The absence of nominee even of one province renders the NEPRA incomplete.

A three-member bench, headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim had heard the case on Thursday last and issued ordered on Saturday.

The court issued notices to the Attorney General for Pakistan and the chief law officers of all provinces. The federal and the Punjab governments have been directed to submit written statements on next date of hearing in February, 2017.

In April last year, a member of NEPRA from the Punjab had retired but the provincial government did not recommend other name.

The petitioner Anwar Kamal advocate had filed the review petition under Article 188 of Constitution read with Order 26 Rule 1 and Order 33 Rule 6 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980, against the Supreme Court judgment dated 08-12-2015. According to the petition, the apex court had announced the judgment without hearing the necessary parties and the most important stakeholders, the federation and all provinces.

He pleaded that the apex court had delivered the judgment in the absence of the federation, all the four provinces, the public at large and the consumers, all of whom are the necessary parties.

He stated that the NEPRA which was introduced through NEPRA Act, 1997 was mandated to protect the interests of consumers and companies providing electric power services. He said at time of the promulgation of NEPRA Act it was envisaged that it would represent the federation and each of the four provinces. The provincial representation and participation is the heart and soul of federalism.

He informed that the rules for seeking nomination of members from the provincial governments have not been framed till date. He said that in the generation of electricity and proposed privatisation of state-owned Distribution Companies (DISCOs), it is important that NEPRA should work as an independent regulator in accordance with the provisions of the NEPRA Act, 1997.

It is equally important that eligibility criteria laid down for the selection and appointment of Chairman and Members of NEPRA should strictly be complied with. He submitted that failure of the federal government to abide by even a single of the three principles would result in “regulatory capture” of the Authority by the federation to the detriment of the rule of law. He asked the apex court to review its judgment as it has resulted in the complete and abject surrender of its independence and autonomy by NEPRA. The heariniadjourned till first week of February.