Find a Lawyer

MESSRS SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

Gas5 8 - National Gas Tariff Rules, 2002, R, 18 retail Appellant company engaged in distribution of natural gas to general consumer related to natural gas prices for retail consumers natural Pricing authorities issued to natural gas consumers Frightened by the notification, Natural Gas High Court's single judge for fiscal year 2014 put aside the notification in question of the authority under which the pricing was set by the authority - by the company through the validity authority. A decision on the estimated revenue requirements sent will be used to bring that specific commitment to this particular financial year This can be done, and not for the next financial year, on the first day of December each year that the company had to file its latest petition to estimate its total revenue for the next fiscal year. Year Question When the pending notification was issued, the company had already filed an application for the \\\ Estimated Revenue Requirements \\ Year 2015 - the notification was not issued for fiscal year 2015, 1 7 Beginning 2015, for which the latest revenue requirements have already been submitted - advice from the Federal Government, issued on 31 8 2015, with the authority for fiscal year 2014, 2015 3 Filed on 2014 1 \\ required said by some financial analysts without reference to any authority document / letter, which was advised by federal government-issued question and Notification regarding the Sunday date issued by the Authority does not meet the criteria set by the High Courts - Federal Government advice and notification issued by the Authority under such advice

P L D 2017 Sindh 733 

Before Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Arshad Hussain Khan, JJ

Messrs SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED through Attorney—Appellant

versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, MP&NR and 5 others—Respondents

High Court Appeals Nos. 192 and 257 of 2016, decided on 15th August, 2017.

Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002)-

—5. 8—National Gas Tariff Rules, 2002,R.,18—Natural gas pricing for retail consumer—Appellant company was engaged in distribution of natural gas to general consumer—Consumers of natural gas were aggrieved of the notification issued by Authorities fixing price of natural gas for financial year 2014-2015—Single Judge of High Court set aside notification in question issued by the Authority whereby price was fixed by the Authority—Validity—One determination was made by the Authority on Estimated Revenue Requirements, sent by the Company for a particular period such determination could be used and applied for that particular financial year and not for the next financial years for which company was required to file its fresh petition on the first day of December each year for the purpose of estimating its total revenue for upcoming financial year—When the notification in question was issued, company had already filed its "Estimated Revenue Requirements" petition for the year 2015-2016—Notification in question was not issued for the financial year, 2015-2016, starting from 1-7-2015 for which fresh "Revenue Requirements" had already been submitted—Advice of Federal Government issued on 31-8-2015, on said "Requirement" filed by the company on 3-1-2014 for the financial year 2014-2015 with the Authorities the same was issued by some Financial Analyst, without referring to any of the documents/letters of the Authority on which the advice in question issued by Federal Government and Notification of the even date issued by the Authority to such effect did not meet the criteria as laid down by superior courts— Advice of Federal Government and notification issued by the Authority pursuant to such advice were constitutionally invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law—Single Judge of High Court while passing judgment had considered all material facts and had also examined relevant provisions of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and thereafter correctly applied his judicial mind in deciding the case— No factual infirmity or legal error in judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court having been found by the Division Bench, High Court appeal was dismissed in circumstances. [p. 767] A

2014 SCMR 220; Najam-uz-Zaman and others v. Engineer-in-Chief, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi and 2 others 2005 SCMR 1802; Printek (Pvt) Ltd. through Executive Director and 3 others v. Shahid Nabi Malik and 4 others 2011 YLR 2941; Muhammad Nadeem Arif and others v. Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore and others 2011 SCMR 408; Securities and Exchange Board of India v. M/s Akshya Infrastructure Pvt. Limited AIR 2014 SC 1963; Mst. Ubaida Manzoor v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education (Schools) Lahore and 4 others

2012 PLC (C.S.) 101; Zahid Rehman v. The State PLD 2015 SC 77; Muhammad Rafi Ere.v. Additioal Commissioner (Rev.) Sargodha 1981 SCMR 1181; Ashfaq Khalid and others v. Muhammad Hanif and 9 others 1988 SCMR 74; Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division PLD 2012 SC 132; Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD

2013 SC 224; Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others PLD 2016 SC 808 and Messrs Farooqui Ice Factory Gambat through Proprietor and 24 others v. Revenue Officer SEPCO (WAPDA) Ranipur District Khairpur and 14 others PLD 2014 Sindh 443 ref.

Appellant by:

Asim Iqbal and Farmanullah for Appellant.

Respondents by:

Adnan I, Chaudhry for Respondents.

Amel Kansi for Respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 758, 759 and 902;

Navin Merchant, Salman Yousuf and Darvesh K. Mandhan for Respondents Nos. 53 to 58, 1345 and 1346.

Hyder Ali Khan and Sami-ur-Rehman for Respondent No. 1233.

M. Anas Makhdoom and Ahmed Farhaj for Respondents Nos. 886 to 890 and 1283.

Naeem Suleman and Arshad Hussain Shahzad for Respondents Nos. 6, 149 to 152, 156 to 162, 164, 166, 168, 169, 286, 289, 292, 295, 298, 303 to 321, 324, 326 and 327, 708 and 709, 733 to 734, 777, 866, 870, 935 to 937, 1235, 1239, 1291, 1386 to 1388.

Faiz Durrani, Sarnia Faiz Durrani and Ghulam Muhammad for Respondents Nos. 10, 145 to 148 and 864.

M. Amen Bandukda for Respondents Nos. 11 to 19, 21 to 31, 33 to 40, 58, 69 to 81, 83 and 84, 88 and 89, 93, 99 to 109, 112 to 115, 198, 200 to 213, 219 to 222, 226, 228 to 230, 234 to 250, 256 to 260, 263 to 268, 272, 274, 761 to 785, 789, 794 to 799, 803, 805, 809, 872 to 876, 878 to 882, 1274 to 1277, 1279, 1331 to 1335, 1346 to 1349 and 1351.

Shahzad Raheem and Qazi Ajmal Kamal for Respondent No.68. Junaid Siddiqui for Respondents Nos. 885, 1340 and 1418.

*

Syed Mohsin Ali for Respondents Nos. 133 to 136, 138 to 142, 170 to 177, 366, 370, 812, 886, 903 to 909, 1213, 1215 to 1218, 1262 to 1264, 1268, 1284, 1285, 1288, 1323, 1355, 1374, 1381 and 1403.

Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti for Respondents Nos. 178 to 192, 331

to 342.

Imran Ahmed for Respondent No.286.

Jahanzeb Awan, Naresh Aruwani, Darvesh K. Mandhan and Patras Piyara for Respondents.

Ms. Sofia Saeed for Respondent.

Ms. Lubna Pervaiz for Respondent.

Salman Talibuddin, Additional Attorney General along with Ms. Alizeh Bashir.

immigration advocate from Jaja Abasian lawyer