اردو
  • Petition against privatization of K Electric declares ineffective after 7 years

    • Last modified on
    • Published in Sindh
    K-electric File Photo K-electric

    The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) on Tuesday declared Jamaat-e-Islami’s plea challenging the 2005 privatisation of K-Electric ineffective. Senior counsel Rasheed A. Razvi and Salahuddin Ahmed appeared before the apex court representing Jamaat-i-Islami.

    Hearing

    At the outset of the hearing, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked council Rasheed “Do you want to continue proceedings over the plea?”

    On which, he replied this application is still effective as it is the issue of more than millions of people who are suffering for years.

    “It is not our concern, we have to see its maintainability in accordance with the constitution,” CJP remarked.

    Meanwhile, Justice Athar Minallah raised questions over the hearing of Reko Diq and Steel Mil case and remarked that these hearing should not have happened.

    “As per the Article 184 of the Constitution, this plea is not admissible, you should take this matter to Parliament,” he added.

    In addition to Justice Athar’s remarks, CJP said “Parliament is honorable institution and we have to strengthen it.”

    He went on to remark that “Privatisation of institutions was decided under National Policy, to strengthen the economy.”

    Council Rasheed A. Rizvi contended and asked the court to permit them to approach Nepra.

    “It is absolutely your right to go to Nepra and other forums,” said CJP.

    On which, Rashid A. Rizvi withdrew a plea against the privatisation of K-Electric.

    Plea

    The plea filed asserts that the privatization of K-Electric has allegedly been carried out in an improper manner, as it was sold at a significantly reduced price and there were various procedural irregularities during the bidding process.

    Furthermore, the petition argues that even the commitments made by the purchasers subsequent to the divestment of the company were not upheld.

    In support of this claim, the petitioner states that the buyers were obligated to invest $361 million in the power utility’s infrastructure, yet they failed to fulfill this necessary investment.