‘Identify mastermind behind RPPs’
CJP asks Pepco's counsel who conceptualised Rental Power Projects, during a suo moto case.
ISLAMABAD:
“Who had conceptualised the Rental Power Projects (RPPs)? And was it ever discussed in the parliament?” Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry asked the counsel for Pepco while hearing a suo motu case.
“We have a democratic government in power, not a dictatorship. And in democracy people sit together and consult each other,” Justice Chaudhry remarked.
Earlier, Khwaja Muhammad Asif of the Nawaz League requested a three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Chaudhry, to cancel the controversial project and help recoup the Rs20billion given to RPPs. “There will be no harm to the court if it cancels RPPs,” Asif submitted.
“Your parliament says it’s sovereign while parliamentarians pressure the court to take action,” Justice Ramday observed while addressing Asif. “It has been published in newspapers that we are hearing cases of political nature. Is this RPPs case political?” he asked.
“We couldn’t get the accountability bill passed in the parliament in 18 months. We don’t even receive information on the floor of the House,” Asif submitted.
Later counsel for Pepco and the ministry of water and power, Khwaja Tariq Rahim submitted that the power shortfall is increasing in the country by 8 per cent per year.
“We were facing a shortfall of 4,989 megawatt in 2008. That is why the government decided to initiate RPPs as well as to buy electricity from the private sector,” he said.
Justice Chaudhry said if the ministry of water and power had conceptualised the RPPs, then it should take it to the parliament for debate.
The ministry pointed out a shortfall of 4,000 megawatts. And as a result, the suggestion for RPPs was floated to overcome the crisis.
“If the secretary had prepared the summary, did he mention the rates of IPPs (Independent Power Plants) and what would be the cost of per unit electricity for the government and later for the people? What would be the infrastructure and after RPPs what would be the future of IPPs?” Justice Ramday asked the counsel and directed him to inform the court about all these issues. “We have to announce the verdict under the law and constitution therefore we should be clear on these things.”
Later, the case was adjourned till October 28.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 27th, 2010.
“Who had conceptualised the Rental Power Projects (RPPs)? And was it ever discussed in the parliament?” Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry asked the counsel for Pepco while hearing a suo motu case.
“We have a democratic government in power, not a dictatorship. And in democracy people sit together and consult each other,” Justice Chaudhry remarked.
Earlier, Khwaja Muhammad Asif of the Nawaz League requested a three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Chaudhry, to cancel the controversial project and help recoup the Rs20billion given to RPPs. “There will be no harm to the court if it cancels RPPs,” Asif submitted.
“Your parliament says it’s sovereign while parliamentarians pressure the court to take action,” Justice Ramday observed while addressing Asif. “It has been published in newspapers that we are hearing cases of political nature. Is this RPPs case political?” he asked.
“We couldn’t get the accountability bill passed in the parliament in 18 months. We don’t even receive information on the floor of the House,” Asif submitted.
Later counsel for Pepco and the ministry of water and power, Khwaja Tariq Rahim submitted that the power shortfall is increasing in the country by 8 per cent per year.
“We were facing a shortfall of 4,989 megawatt in 2008. That is why the government decided to initiate RPPs as well as to buy electricity from the private sector,” he said.
Justice Chaudhry said if the ministry of water and power had conceptualised the RPPs, then it should take it to the parliament for debate.
The ministry pointed out a shortfall of 4,000 megawatts. And as a result, the suggestion for RPPs was floated to overcome the crisis.
“If the secretary had prepared the summary, did he mention the rates of IPPs (Independent Power Plants) and what would be the cost of per unit electricity for the government and later for the people? What would be the infrastructure and after RPPs what would be the future of IPPs?” Justice Ramday asked the counsel and directed him to inform the court about all these issues. “We have to announce the verdict under the law and constitution therefore we should be clear on these things.”
Later, the case was adjourned till October 28.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 27th, 2010.