Find a Lawyer

SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED (SSGCL) versus OIL AND GAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY (OGRA)

- Sections 12 (2) and 13 - The High Court, the jurisdiction ope's provisions of section 13 of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002, relate to a situation where the authority has no right to modify, recover, alter, modify or It may be bound to make a difference. Or in the event of a change of circumstances or the discovery of any evidence, which could not reasonably be found in the opinion of the Authority at the time of the decision or (in the case of a hearing) at the actual hearing, if in the circumstances This decision will be materially altered by consideration of the change or new evidence - as the Oil Situation stated in Section 13 of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002, Section 12 (2) of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority. Different and different from the one provided below. Ordinance, 2002 Section 12 (The primary jurisdiction of the High Court under the 2 of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002, to see whether the Oil and Gas Regulation has been complied with) by the Litigation Authority Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority In the letter and spirits of the Ordinance, 2002 [pp. 572, 582] A&B

PLD 2017 Sindh 567

Before Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui, J

SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED (SSGCL) through Deputy Chief Manager—Petitioner

versus

OIL AND GAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY (OGRA) through Chairman and another—Respondents

OGRA J.M. Nos.l and 2 of 2011, 1 of 2012, 2 of 2013, 1 of 2014 and 9 of 2016, decided on 25th November, 2016.

(a) Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002)—

—-Ss. 12(2) & 13—High Court, jurisdiction of—Scope—Provisions of S.13 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, relates to a situation where authority may oblige to review, rescind, change, alter or vary any decision or rehear an application in the event of change in circumstances or discovery of evidence which in the opinion of the Authority, could not have reasonably been discovered at the time of decision or (in the case of rehearing) at the time of original hearing, if consideration of the change in circumstances or of new evidence would materially alter the decision—Situation as described in S.13 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, is different and distinguishable from the one provided under S.12(2) of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002—Primary jurisdiction of High Court in terms of S.12(2 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, is to see whether procedure, as undertaken by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority is in the letter and spirit of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. [pp. 572, 582] A & B

(b) Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002)—

—Ss. 12(2)—Tariff, fixation of—Jurisdiction of High Court-Scope— Petitioner company was aggrieved of decision taken by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority with regard to fixation of tariff—Validity— Jurisdiction under S.12(2) of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, is limited to the extent that High Court could only apply judicial view as to whether procedural requirement under Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, Rules and Licenses had been followed—High Court could not sit as Court of appeal and consider such details which Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority had undertaken—Price fixation mechanism was not a function which was to be undertaken by High Court—Where procedural requirements had been flouted, High Court could provide indulgence—Specialized perfÓrm;ances which were assigned to regulatory authority could not be undertaken by High Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion-judicial intervention in the matter was required only where person aggrieved i.e. the petitioner, could show that tariff fixation was a procedure bypassed, arbitrary and ultra vires; it could only then if statutory prescribed procedure was not followed, a tariff could be held ultra vires to be remanded back—High Court declined to interfere with statutory powers exercised by statutory authority while fixing tariff and reasons assigned to Annual Revenue Requirements and tariff—Petition dismissed in circumstances. [p. 584] C

2016 SCMR 69 and PLD 2012 SC 132 ref.

Mirza Mahmood Ahmad along with Fahad Malik for Petitioner.

Salman Akram Raja and Tariq Bashir along with M. Rizwan ul Haq, Executive Director Litigation (OGRA) for Respondent No.l.

Nemo for Respondent No.2.

Anwar Mansoor Khan along with Ms. Omemah Khan, Ms. Reem Tashfeen Niaz and Muhammad Ali Talpur for Applicants.

Dates of hearing; 18th, 19th, 20th, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th October, 2016 and 2nd and 3rd November, 2016.

female advocates from Hunza Nagar lawyer