Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 3378
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad), officially reported as 2026 LHC 3378. In this matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad) DECISION DATE: 03-06-2026 TAGLINE: Doctrine of judicial restraint?Economic and regulatory policies fall within the exclusive domain of the Executive and Legislature?Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is confined to examining legality of decision-making process and not the merits or wisdom of policy decisions?Interference declined. CASE DETAILS: Misc. Writ 32881/26 ============================================================ Form No: HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT) Writ Petition No.32881 of 2026.
Ashba Kamran. Versus National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA through its Chairman & 05 others.
S. No. of order/ Proceeding Date of order/ Proceeding Order with signature of Judge, and that of Parties or counsel, where necessary 03.06.2026. Petitioner in person. Syed Ali Raza Abbas, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan. (On Court’s Call). Through this Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("The Constitution"), the petitioner has called into question the legality and constitutionality of various policy decisions, regulatory frameworks, tariff mechanisms, sovereign guarantees, and contractual arrangements relating to the power sector. She has, inter alia, sought declarations regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of the capacity payment mechanism, dollar indexation of tariffs, sover eign guarantees issued by the Federal Government, and has further prayed for issuance of directions for recovery of amounts allegedly paid to Independent Power Producers (IPPs) as well as restructuring of the entire power sector regulatory regime by claiming the impugned mechanisms to be violative of Articles 2, 2A, 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 25 and 77 of the Constitution and have resulted in economic exploitation of the public at large. 2. Heard. Record perused. W.P. No.32881 of 2026. 2 3. The principal grievance raised in the petition pertains to the wisdom, efficacy, fairness and economic consequences of policies framed by the Federal Government and statutory regulatory bodies concerning generation, purchase and distribution of electricity. The relief sought would require this Court to examine and substitute its own views regarding tariff structures, contractual risk allocation, sovereign guarantees, foreign investment incentives, capacity payment mechanisms and broader energy-sector governance. 4. It is by now a settled principle of co nstitutional jurisprudence that policy matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Executive and the Legislature. The constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is confined to examining whether any action is tainted by lack of jurisdiction, mala fides, violation of law, or infringement of a specific constitutional or statutory provision. The Court does not sit as an appellate forum over economic, fiscal, commercial or regulatory policies formulated by competent authorities. Questions relating to the desirability, wisdom or economic soundness of a policy are not justiciable unless the policy is shown to be ex facie unconstitutional or violative of a mandatory provision of law. 5. The petitioner has challenged an entire regulatory and contractual framework governing the national power sector and seeks directions requiring redesign of tariff mechanisms, cancellation of sovereign guarantees, recovery W.P. No.32881 of 2026. 3 of alleged excess payments, restructuring of contractual relationships and initiation of criminal proceedings a gainst public functionaries. Such matters involve complex economic, technical and financial considerations requiring specialized expertise and policy evaluation, which fall outside the scope of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. 6. Mere disagreement with a policy decision, however strongly expressed, does not furnish a cause of action for invoking constitutional jurisdiction. The Court cannot assume the role of a policy maker, regulator, auditor, economist or energy -sector administrator. Acceptance of the petitioner's contentions would amount to judicial encroachment into spheres constitutionally reserved for other organs of the State. 7. The allegations regarding economic inefficiency, fiscal burden upon consumers, suitability of capacit y payments, dollar indexation, adequacy of force majeure provisions, or desirability of sovereign guarantees are all matters of policy. Their examination lies within the competence of the relevant executive authorities, regulatory bodies and legislative fo rums. No specific violation of any enforceable fundamental right has been demonstrated warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. 8. The Indian Supreme Court was confronted with somewhat similar situation and in a judgment reported as W.P. No.32881 of 2026. 4 "Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. V. Trafalgar House Construction (I) and others" [(1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 738], the Court held as under:- "It is well known that it is difficult for the country to go ahead with such high cos t projects unless the financial institutions like the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank grant loan or subsidy, as the case may be. When such financial institutions grant such huge loans they always insist that any project for which loan has been san ctioned must be carried out in accordance with the specification and within the scheduled time and the procedure for granting the award must be duly adhered to. In the aforesaid premises on getting the valuation bids of the appellant and Respondent 1 toget her with the consultant's opinion after the so -called corrections made the conclusion of the bank to the effect "the lowest evaluated substantially responsive bidder is consequently AFCONS" cannot be said to be either arbitrary or capricious or illegal req uiring court's interference in the matter of an award of contract. There was some dispute between the Bank on one hand and the consultant who was called upon to evaluate on the other on the question whether there is any power of making any correction to th e bid documents after a specified period. The High Court in construing certain clauses of the bid documents has come to the conclusion that such a correction was permissible and, therefore, the Bank could not have insisted upon granting the contract in fav our of the appellant. We are of the considered opinion that it was not within the permissible limits of interference for a court of law, particularly when there has been no allegation of malice or ulterior motive and particularly when the court has not fou nd any mala fides or favouritism in the grant of contract in favour of the appellant." 9. The aforesaid passage was quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as "Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (2012 SCMR 455), wherein it was observed as follows:- "Even otherwise, we are living in a globalized world of interdependence; a world where countries and international financial institutions assist and aid the developing countries in their march toward s economic progress. International Monetory Fund is one of those institutions which has played its role in several countries. Though its policies some times may be open to criticism but that is for the concerned economists in the government or academics to examine and opine but once the Competent Authority in the government has taken a decision backed by law, it would not be in W.P. No.32881 of 2026. 5 consonance with the well established norms of judicial review to interfere in policy making domain of the executive authority." 9. The aforesaid principle regarding judicial restraint and limited interference in matters involving economic policy, commercial arrangements and decisions requiring technical expertise was also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case t itled "Messrs POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF CHINA LTD. through Authorised Representative V. PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman WAPDA and 2 others" (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 83). 10. It is equally well settled that while exer cising constitutional jurisdiction, the superior Courts must observe judicial restraint in matters relating to administration, governance and public policy. The doctrine of separation of powers envisaged by the Constitution requires each organ of the State to function within its own constitutional sphere. Courts are not expected to interfere with administrative or executive decisions merely because another view may appear more desirable or efficient. Judicial review is concerned with the legality of the dec ision-making process and not with the merits of the decision itself. Unless an administrative action is shown to be patently unconstitutional, without lawful authority, tainted by mala fides, or violative of a statutory or constitutional provision, the Cou rts ought to refrain from substituting their own judgment for that of the competent executive or regulatory W.P. No.32881 of 2026. 6 authorities. Such restraint preserves the delicate constitutional balance among the organs of the State and ensures that the judiciary does not tran sgress into domains reserved for the Executive and the Legislature. Scope of judicial restraint has been vastly elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled "Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. and others. V. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt) Ltd." (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 01) "27. In contemporary age, there has been a significant growth in the judicial review of administrative actions and the grounds on which the Courts interfere have been expanded. This expansion, however, "has taken place in the shadow of competing concerns of 'vigilance' and , 'restraint' and it is faithfulness to these dual concerns of vigilance and restraint which produces the unique supervisory jurisdiction which is the hallmark of judicial review 1." If the Courts fail to maintain this delicate balance, none else but people's confidence in the judiciary would be the worst victim. As aptly observed by Radford: "One of the principal aims of a system of judicial review must be to maintain a high level of public confidence in t he administrative decision making process and this must also be borne in mind in assessing the level of judicial intervention which is desirable. It can be argued that the courts' desire to achieve a fair and just result in an individual case must be tampe red with a commitment not to interfere unduly with the achievement of policy objectives."
11. For what has been discussed above, this petition is found to be devoid of merit and not maintainable. Consequently, the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD) JUDGE Approved for Reporting.
JUDGE. M. Arsalan*