The Sindh High Court on Wednesday suspended the demand notice of K-Electric regarding disconnection of power to Pakistan Railways till further orders. The interim order came on a plea filed by PR against a demand notice issued by K Electric to disconnect its installations.
Syed Ehsan Raza, counsel for the petitioner, said that there is already a dispute between K Electric and PR regarding payment of railway land use by the power utility. Raza said PR had issued a demand notice to K Electric for the use of railway land worth around Rs 78 billion, but the power utility had obtained an injunction in the matter.
He said that K Electric issued demand notices for recovery of arrears and took action to disconnect PR installations with ulterior motives. He added that PR is a public institution providing public service, and any power cut from railway installations will cause hardship to the public, as it will affect the operations and services of PR.
He urged the court to declare that PR is a department of the federal government and is entitled to recover dues from KE for the use of its land, and that the power utility’s right to cut off power to the railways. Demand notice issued for is illegal under electricity. The law that protects PR.
He also sought an injunction against KE’s coercive action and interference with the smooth functioning of the PR in Karachi, as the petitioner is a star consumer paying Rs 120 million per month, some accounts of the power utility. I with a credit balance.
After the preliminary hearing of the petition, a constitution bench of the Sindh High Court headed by Justice Sana Akram Minhas issued notices to K Electric and others and in the process suspended the illegal demand notice of the power utility.
Earlier, KE had also obtained a stay order on PR’s demand notice. KE’s counsel said that the illegal demand notice for installation of electric poles and underground cables was made under Rule 2 of the Railway Land and Property Rules, 2023, which was framed under Section 47 of the Pakistan Railways Act. was
Counsel said that Section 47 defines the subjects for which the PR can make rules, and it does not empower the Railways to make any rules for levying such charges, such as demand notices. I have claimed.
Even otherwise such rules cannot be given retrospective effect, he said, adding that when the petitioner had replied to the impugned notice, the PR had not paid any attention to the reply. .
Adamant to remove the petitioner’s installations in case of non-payment of PR charges, he expressed apprehension that the petitioner would suffer irreparable damage if the interim injunction is not granted.