LHC Refuses to Stop Load-Shedding and Gas Shortage, Fines Petitioner Rs. 1 Lac

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking judicial intervention in electricity loadshedding, gas shortages, and broader energy sector governance, ruling that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of specialized regulators and policymakers rather than the courts.

In a detailed judgment, Justice Khalid Ishaq held that courts cannot function as regulators or substitute their judgment for that of expert bodies such as the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) and the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA).

The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 100,000 on the petitioner for failing to submit enough relevant evidence. The amount has been directed to be deposited in the dispensary fund of the Lahore High Court Bar Association within 45 days, although the order has been suspended for 30 days to allow the petitioner to file an appeal.

Justice Ishaq observed that public interest litigation is an important legal mechanism but must be exercised with caution and genuine public purpose. The judgment stressed that courts must ensure such petitions are not used to pursue publicity, private interests, or unsubstantiated allegations under the guise of public welfare.

The petition sought declarations against electricity loadshedding and gas shortages, along with directions for uninterrupted energy supplies to courts, hospitals, and other public institutions. It also requested the formation of inquiry commissions and accountability proceedings against officials allegedly responsible for the energy crisis.

However, the court found that the petition relied on broad and unverified claims and that the petitioner had failed to utilize the statutory remedies available under laws governing NEPRA and OGRA.

Justice Ishaq further noted that issues such as energy pricing, procurement, distribution, and regulatory oversight involve specialized expertise and executive policy considerations.

He warned that excessive judicial intervention in such areas could have significant economic and administrative consequences.

Reacting to the ruling, Judicial Activism Panel Chairman Advocate Azhar Siddique termed the judgment flawed and announced plans to challenge it before a higher forum.

He argued that the petition was filed to highlight genuine public concerns arising from the country’s ongoing energy shortages and the difficulties faced by consumers.