ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday directed the counsel of captive power plants (CPPs) to submit written comments in a petition challenging the decision of government for suspension of extra gas supply to 61 industries of the country.
A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah issued the directions after hearing the case filed by 61 industries through their lawyer Salman Akram Raja.
During the hearing, director Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources adopted the stance before the bench that these industries could file applications regarding the gas load till March 31 and the government would not disconnect their connections till that date.
At this, the court deferred the hearing of the case with above-mentioned directions.
It was January 28 when a cabinet committee had decided to stop the extra gas supply to captive power plants in a bid to balance the load. Then, 61 industrial units challenged the decision before the IHC bench.
However, the IHC Chief Justice gave the go-ahead on Thursday to the federal government to implement its decision on discontinuing gas supply to captive power plants (CPPs) saying that the judicial oversight in economic decision making could be detrimental to public interest and withdrew the stay order issued against the federal cabinet’s decision of stopping gas supply to the CCPs of manufacturers and industries.
The court noted in its order that the judicial oversight of the nation’s economic interests or policies by a High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the constitution could expose public interest to harm rather than advancing it.
Secretary to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources Asad Hayauddin had informed the bench that the concept of CCP was being misconstrued by the petitioner companies. He said that the policy making process was initiated more than a year ago and all the stakeholders were duly consulted.
In its order, Justice Athar observed that deference has to be demonstrably shown to the executive branch of the state in the context of its economic policies because it is a safer course for a court to adopt rather than exposing public interest to harm.
