Inhabitants of Jungle Khel Vs CEO PESCO etc.

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Civil Revision No. 459-P/2024

Inhabitants of Jungle Khel Urban III & IV.

.........Petitioner(s).

Versus Chief Executive Officer, PESCO, Peshawar and others.

....Respondents.

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hassan Ullah Khan Afridi, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s): Barrister Asad Ul Mulk.

Date of Hearing: 24.2.2026.

JUDGMENT

WIQAR AHMAD, J.- Through this single judgment, instant Civil Revision petition is intended to be decided, which is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below, whereby the suit filed by Petitioners for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed up to the appellate forum.

2.Briefly stated, facts as averred in the plaint are that the petitioners, as representatives of inhabitants of Jungle Khel Urban- III & IV, Kohat, instituted a civil suit (No. 311/1 of 2016) on April 30, 2016, seeking a Decree for Declaration and Permanent-cum- Mandatory Injunction. The core grievance of the petitioners was that

the respondents (CEO PESCO, Chairman WAPDA, and others) were legally bound to adhere to a fixed loadshedding schedule of 08 hours for urban areas and 12 hours for rural areas. It was alleged that the respondents were unlawfully carrying out loadshedding for up to 18 hours in the petitioners' urban locality, an act termed as discriminatory, illegal, and a violation of their fundamental rights.

3.The respondents (Nos. 1 to 5) contested the suit by filing their written statements, raising various legal and factual objections, including the non-joinder of necessary parties and the lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to interfere in administrative policy matters. Respondent No. 6 (Federal Government) failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.The litigation history reveals that the suit was initially dismissed by the learned Civil Judge-III, Kohat, on June 06, 2018, on the grounds that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the administrative policies of an autonomous body. However, upon appeal (Civil Appeal No. 77/13 of 2018), the learned Additional District Judge-V, Kohat, vide judgment dated December 08, 2018, set aside the dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to decide the matter on its merits after recording evidence.

5.Following the remand, the trial court framed several issues and directed the parties to produce their evidence. The petitioners

produced ten witnesses (PW-1 to PW-10). PW-1 (SDO Grid Station Kohat) and PW-2 (Grid Incharge) produced documentary evidence including PESCO loadshedding schedules (Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW- 2/1 to 2/3), which indicated schedules ranging from 08 to 12 hours depending on the season and specific feeder. PW-3 (ALM XEN Rural Division) deposed that in areas with high line losses or electricity theft, power shutdowns could be extended. The remaining witnesses (PW-4 to PW-9), being local residents, provided oral testimony regarding excessive loadshedding but did not produce any corroborating documentary evidence. The petitioners' representative (PW-10) reiterated the contents of the plaint. The respondents opted not to produce separate witnesses, relying instead on the cross- examination of the official witnesses (PW-1 to PW-3).

6.Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Civil Judge-VI, Kohat, vide judgment and decree dated July 14, 2022, dismissed the suit. The Civil court held that the petitioners failed to provide documentary proof of 18-hour loadshedding and that the schedules were subject to change based on technical factors like line losses and theft. Significantly, the court found the suit bad for non-joinder of a necessary party, specifically the Deputy Director Power Distribution Cell (PDC) Peshawar, who was the authority responsible for issuing the schedules.

7.Aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioners preferred an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 41/13) before the Additional DistrictJudge-V, Kohat. The appellate court, vide judgment dated March 27, 2024, dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's findings. The appellate court observed that the duration of loadshedding is inherently linked to line losses and recovery percentages in specific areas and that the petitioners had failed to prove any mala fides or abuse of authority by the respondents.

8.It is against these concurrent findings of the two courts below that the petitioners have now approached this Court through instant Civil Revision Petition, seeking the setting aside of the impugned judgments and the decreeing of their suit as prayed for.

9.Arguments heard and record perused.

10.The central legal question for determination is whether the Civil Court possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the petitioners' challenge to the load-shedding schedules and administrative policies of PESCO. The respondents have consistently maintained that such matters fall within the exclusive regulatory domain of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred.

11.The legal regime governing the power sector is defined by the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (NEPRA Act). The Act establishes NEPRA as the sole regulatory authority. Under Section 3 of the Act, the Federal Government is mandated to establish the NEPRA, a specialized body comprising a Chairman and four members representing each Province, ensuring a high level of integrity and eminence in fields such as law, engineering, and economics. The Act confers extensive and exclusive powers upon the Authority under Section 7, specifically making it the primary arbiter for regulating electric power services and settling disputes. Under Section 7(2)(h) and 7(6), the Authority is tasked with settling disputes between licensees and protecting the interests of consumers through principles of transparency and impartiality. To operationalize the grievance redressal mandate, the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Complaint Handling and Dispute Resolution Procedure) Rules, 2015 (2015 Rules), were framed under Section 46 of the Act. Furthermore, Section 45 of the Act provides that these provisions have an overriding effect over any inconsistent law, reinforcing NEPRA's exclusive empowerment to determine the terms and conditions of electric power services. For ready reference, the provisions of Section 45 are reproduced below:

45.Relationship to other laws.___ The provisions of this Act, rules and regulations made and licences issued thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything to

the contrary contained in any other law, rule or regulation, for the time being in force and any such law, rule or regulation shall, to the extent of any inconsistency, cease to have any effect from the date this Act comes into force and the Authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be exclusively empowered to determine rates, charges and other terms and conditions for electric power services:

Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction, powers or determinations of the Corporate Law Authority or the Monopoly Control Authority.

12.Similarly, the 2015 Rules provide a comprehensive and structured "Complaint" mechanism. Under Rule 2(1)(iii), a "complaint" is defined as any written grievance against a licensee for contravention of the Act, rules, or instructions, specifically including disputes between consumers and licensees. Rule 3 mandates that a complainant must first approach the respondent (the licensee) for redressal. If the grievance is not resolved within fifteen days, the complainant may formally file a complaint with the Authority. The rules provide for a detailed procedure involving:

registration of complaints and filing of formal replies by the licensee (Rule 4 & 5); investigation by the Authority or its officers (Rule 6);

site inspections and the constitution of specialized Tribunals for complex disputes or class-action complaints involving a group of consumers (Rule 7 & 8); and issuance of final orders after providing an opportunity for a hearing, followed by a right of "Review" for any aggrieved party (Rule 10 & 11). This detailed procedural hierarchy confirms that the legislature intended for technical disputes, such as those involving load-shedding schedules and

distribution standards, to be adjudicated by the Authority, which possesses the technical expertise and statutory mandate to enforce compliance.

13.It is a well-established principle of law that where a special statute creates a specialized forum and provides a specific remedy for certain grievances, the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Courts is impliedly barred. This principle, often referred to as the "implied bar," dictates that a party must exhaust the remedies provided by the special statute before approaching a Civil Court, if at all. This position has been consistently affirmed by the superior courts of Pakistan. In General Manager, SNGPL, Peshawar v. Qamar Zaman (2021 SCMR 2094), Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that where exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon a specialized tribunal by statute, it acts as an implied bar on the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Similarly, in Muhammad Azam Khan Niazi v. General Manager, SNGPL (2019 CLC 1998 Islamabad), it was held that the availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy under a special law ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Furthermore, the imperative to exhaust special remedies before invoking ordinary civil jurisdiction was held in Muhammad Siddique v. Mst. Noor Bibi (2020 SCMR 483).

14.These precedents settle that disputes falling within the purview of NEPRA's regulatory domain, including issues related to

load-shedding schedules and consumer grievances against power distribution companies, are primarily to be addressed by NEPRA itself. The existence of the 2015 Rules fortifies the "Implied Bar" doctrine. When the law provides a specific procedure for "Complaint Handling and Dispute Resolution" before a specialized body, the general jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. The petitioners' grievance regarding 18-hour load-shedding is precisely the type of "contravention of instructions or license terms" contemplated under Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the 2015 Rules.

15.The stance regarding the jurisdiction of NEPRA over such disputes has been further solidified by recent pronouncements of the Superior Courts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in CP No. 2224 of 2020 (decided on 17.10.2023) titled "PESCO through Chief Executive, PESCO, WAPDA House, Peshawar and others v.

Ahlvan-e- Jhagra through Waqas Khan Chamkani, Peshawar and others." while dealing with the issue of an appeal against the order of this Court, held that this Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining matters that squarely fell within NEPRA's domain, reiterating that NEPRA was the specialized forum for addressing grievances related to the power sector. Following this authoritative judgment from the Supreme Court, this Court itself has consistently dismissed petitions of a similar nature. For instance, the judgments in W.P. No. 5972-P/2025 dated 15.01.2026 titled "M/s Asakar Flour & General Mills etc. v. Federal Government through Secretary

Energy and Powers, GovMof Pakistan etc." and W.P. No. 3532- P/2020 dated 06.12.2023 titled "Saifullah Muhib Kakakhel and others v. Federation of Pakistan through its Federal Secretary, Islamabad and others," both dealing with load-shedding grievances, were dismissed as non-maintainable in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in CP No. 2224 of 2020. These consistent decisions on the issue in hand unequivocally establish that matters concerning load-shedding policies and related consumer complaints against power distribution companies fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of NEPRA.

16.In view of the foregoing analysis, it is evident that the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissing the petitioners' civil suit, are based on sound legal principles and facts. The petitioners failed to establish mala fides or prove their allegations of excessive and discriminatory load-shedding to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. More fundamentally, the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the nuances of load-shedding schedules, their fairness, and compliance with established standards rests with the specialized regulatory body, NEPRA, as mandated by the NEPRA Act. The implied bar on Civil Court jurisdiction in such matters is clear and has been consistently upheld by the superior courts. Therefore, this Court finds no legal or factual infirmity in the judgments of the lower courts warranting interference in revision. Consequently, the instant Civil Revision Petition is hereby DISMISSED. However,

the petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, i.e., NEPRA, for redressal of their grievances regarding load-shedding, in accordance with the law.

Announced:

24th of February,2026 *Zarshad*

--sd--

JUDGE

(SB)Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wiqar Ahmad CR No. 459-P/2024