2021 PLP 1395 (SCMR)
SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. through G.M. Hayatabad Peshawar — Petitioner Versus Messrs SAIF TEXTILE MILLS LTD. — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1395 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. through G.M. Hayatabad Peshawar — Petitioner Versus Messrs SAIF TEXTILE MILLS LTD. — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act (VI of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1395 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act (VI of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1395 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1395 (SCMR) (SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. through G.M. Hayatabad Peshawar — Petitioner Versus Messrs SAIF TEXTILE MILLS LTD. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 2(c) & 2(j)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal---Textile unit (respondent) powered by natural gas supplied by petitioner-Gas company---Shortfall in gas meter reading causing loss to exchequer---Respondent filed Constitutional petition before the High Court against the petitioner-company, seeking multiple declarations and prayers; the High Court, however, transmitted the Constitutional petition to the District and Sessions Judge/Tribunal Protection Consumer Interest to redress respondent's grievance; it also restrained the department from disconnecting the gas connection---Sessions Judge transferred the complaint to the Consumer Court, which dismissed the complaint---However, the High Court, once again remanded it for decision afresh to the Consumer Court, which dismissed the complaint for the second time---Appeal was filed by respondent before the High Court against dismissal of his complaint, which appeal was allowed, judgment of the Consumer Court was set-aside and the complaint was allowed---Counsel for the petitioner-company contended that there was no occasion for the High Court, in the first place, to transmit the Constitution petition involving factual controversies requiring technical verification for determination to the Consumer Court and, thus, on each occasion the Consumer Court rightly dismissed the complaint; that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997 ('the Act') was a statute devised to protect legitimate rights of a consumer to have best value for his money and for that it placed specified obligations upon the manufacturer; that the respondent was not a consumer nor the petitioner a manufacturer within the contemplation of Ss. 2(c) & 2(j) of the Act and, thus, the High Court had misdirected itself to refer the issue to the Court, an error rectified through successive dismissals leaving no space for the High Court to allow the complaint by putting at peril a colossal amount due to the public exchequer---Supreme Court observed that contentions raised by the counsel for petitioner-company needed consideration, therefore leave was granted.
- Asad Jan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Shahid Qayyum Khattak, Advocate Supreme Court and Tasleem Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 08.9.2017 of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar passed in Cr. A. No. 338-P of 2016)
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Respondent is a textile unit, set up in Gadoon Amazai, incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 with the name and style of Messrs Saif Textile Mills Ltd. powered on natural gas supplied by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) through Meter No.74058, initially installed at the premises on 27.11.2009. The gas company noted a substantial shortfall in the readings recorded by the meter and replaced it with a new one on 24.01.2010. Loss to the exchequer was estimated as Rs.11.68 million. It is in this backdrop that the respondent arraying, amongst others Federation of Pakistan along with Gas and Regulatory Authority, SNGPL and Executive Engineer, SNGPL filed W.P. No.3433 of 2011 in the Peshawar High Court, seeking multiple declarations and prayers; the High Court, however, vide order dated 20.12.2011 transmitted the writ petition to the District and Sessions Judge/Tribunal Protection Consumer Interest Peshawar to redress respondent's grievance; it also restrained the department from disconnecting the gas connection. The Sessions Judge transferred the complaint to the Consumer Court constituted under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997 (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Act No.VI of 1997), "the Act". The complaint was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2015, however, the High Court, vide order dated 3.7.2015, once again remanded it for decision afresh with results no different than earlier vide order dated 21.04.2016, impugned by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 8.9.2017 accepted the appeal in the following terms:- "For the reasons discussed above, I while accepting this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Consumer Court dated 21.04.2016 and allowed the complaint."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no occasion for the High Court, in the first place, to transmit the Constitution petition involving factual controversies requiring technical verification for determination to the Consumer Court and, thus, on each occasion the Consumer Court rightly dismissed the complaint. It is next argued that the Act is a Statute devised to protect legitimate rights of a consumer to have best value for his money and for that places specified obligations upon the manufacturer as is evident from its preamble; the respondent is not a consumer nor the petitioner a manufacturer within the contemplation of sections 2(c) and 2(j) of the Act and, thus, the High Court had misdirected itself to refer the issue to the Court, an error rectified through successive dismissals leaving no space for the High Court to allow the complaint by putting at peril a colossal amount due to the public exchequer, concluded the learned counsel.
3. Contentions raised need consideration; leave, inter alia, is granted to the petitioner. Mr. Shahid Qayyum Khattak, ASC has entered appearance to defend the impugned order. Office is directed to prepare the paper book with parties, at liberty to place the additional documents, if any. Since, a short matter involving public exchequer is involved, the office shall cause fixation of the appeal with all convenient dispatch. Cr. M.A. No.61-P/2017
4. Operation of the impugned judgment shall be held in abeyance. MWA/S-35/SC Leave granted.