P L D 2026 Sindh 37 (PLP)
SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager — Appellant Versus BHAJAN LAL — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2026 Sindh 37 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager — Appellant Versus BHAJAN LAL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (c) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016), (a) General Clauses Act (X of 1897), (b) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2026 Sindh 37 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016), (a) General Clauses Act (X of 1897), (b) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2026 Sindh 37 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2026 Sindh 37 (PLP) (SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager — Appellant Versus BHAJAN LAL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto and Zubair Ahmed Abro for Respondents (in 1st Civil Appeals Nos.S-15 and S-18 of 2024).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 20
Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016), Ss. 3, 4 & 5
Civil dispute between Gas Company and consumer
Gas Utility Court
Scope
Gas Utility Court declined to adjudicate civil dispute under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 ('the Act, 2016') and rejected plaints filed by Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (Gas Company/Appellants)
Argument of the consumers/respondents was that the Gas Utility Court(s) for adjudicating civil disputes under the Act, 2016 had not been notified vide Notification No. SO No. 293(1)/2017 dated 02.05.2017, ('the Notification')
Via the Notification, having been passed under S. 3 of the Act, 2016, the courts of certain District and Sessions Judges were notified as Gas Utility Courts to operate within defined territorial jurisdictions
Unfortunately, an ambiguity crept in due to the wording of the Notification as the same mentioned that the Courts so established will "exercise the powers for the trial of offences under the said Act..."; no mention was made explicitly for also adjudicating civil disputes falling within the purview of the Act, 2016; which was the basis for the consumers/respondents wrongly making their argument
The Notification mentions S. 3 of the Act, 2016 while S. 3 only provides for establishing an all-encompassing Gas Utility Court, which does not bifurcate between a civil or a criminal Gas Utility Court
Further, S. 4, which is the operative section to determine the jurisdiction of a Gas Utility Court, stipulates that the same "shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters covered by this Act"
Hence, since the Act, 2016 does not create a division between a Civil Gas Utility Court and a Criminal Gas Utility Court, delegated legislation. i.e., a notification, cannot create such a distinction for the same will be in contravention of S. 4 of the Act, 2016
Section 20 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides that "where by any Federal Act or Regulation, a power to issue any notification...is conferred...the expressions used in the notification...if it is made after the commencement of this Act, shall unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, have the same respective meanings as in the Act or Regulation conferring the power"
Even otherwise, it is settled law that delegated legislation cannot contradict the principal statute
And in case of any contravention, the courts shall make all efforts to reconcile the inconsistency
Thus, the Gas Utility Courts established under the Notification hold the jurisdiction to adjudicate civil and criminal matters per the mandate of Ss. 3, 4 & 5 of the Act, 2016
Appellate/High Court set-aside the impugned order directing the Gas Utility Courts to proceed with adjudicating civil cases under the Act, 2016 and ensuing Notification
Appeal, filed by Gas Company, was allowed accordingly.
Ss.3, 4 & 5
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 2(4)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 9
Civil dispute between Gas Company and consumer
Gas Utility Court
Scope
Gas Utility Court declined to adjudicate civil dispute under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 ('the Act, 2016') and rejected plaints filed by Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (Gas Company/Appellants)
Argument of the consumers/respondents was that the Gas Utility Court(s) for adjudicating civil disputes under the Act, 2016 had not been notified vide Notification No. SO No. 293(1)/2017 dated 02.05.2017 ('the Notification')
Held, that the District and Sessions Judges have been notified as Gas Utility Courts
If, for the sake of assumption, it is argued that these were elected only for the criminal trial, then the question arises as to why the term District was also included
A District is defined in S. 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as "...the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction ('District Court']
At the same time, a Court of Session is established under S. 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, for criminal cases
The term "District and Sessions Judge" is used cumulatively in the Notification
Had the intent been to only notify for criminal trials, then the correct phrase employed would have been Sessions Judge only and not District and Sessions Judge
Even if that were the case, the same would not have been valid as the Notification cannot revoke/withhold jurisdiction expressly granted by the statute under S. 4 of the Act, 2016
The powers of issuing the Notification must fall squarely within the mandate of the principal statute
Thus, the Gas Utility Courts established under the Notification hold the jurisdiction to adjudicate civil and criminal matters per the mandate of Ss. 3, 4 & 5 of the Act, 2016
Appellate/High Court set-aside the impugned order directing the Gas Utility Courts to proceed with adjudicating civil cases under the Act, 2016 and ensuing Notification
Appeal, filed by Gas Company, was allowed accordingly.
Ss. 3, 4 & 5
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, Rr. 10 & 11
Civil dispute between Gas Company and consumer
Gas Utility Court
Scope
Gas Utility Court declined to adjudicate civil dispute under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 ('the Act, 2016') in suit filed by Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (Gas Company) and rejected plaints under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., filed by Suit Southern Gas Company Limited (Gas Company/Appellants)
The District Judge rejected the plaint under O. VII, R. 11(c), C.P.C. as being barred by law-- Nothing in the Act, 2016 bars the appellants from filing a claim under the Act, 2016
The entire mechanism of the Act, 2016 provides explicitly for filing such suits
Hence, the District Judge erred in holding that the suit was legally barred as the reasoning directly conflicts with the Act, 2016; if he believed that he did not have requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter, he could, at best, have ordered for the return of the plaint under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C., and not rejected the plaint
Thus, the Gas Utility Courts established under the Notification hold the jurisdiction to adjudicate civil and criminal matters per the mandate of Ss. 3, 4 & 5 of the Act, 2016
Appellate/High Court set-aside the impugned order directing the Gas Utility Courts to proceed with adjudicating civil cases under the Act, 2016 and ensuing Notification
Judgment & Decree
OMAR SIAL, J.
The principal question of law to be decided in these appeals is whether a Gas Utility Court established under section 3 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, has jurisdiction to adjudicate civil disputes arising under the Act. In all the cases from which these appeals arise, the District Judge declined to do so and rejected plaints under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. A Gas Utility Court is defined in section 2(i) of The Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, as established under section
3. Section 3 of the Act provides the mechanism for establishing the Court. The mechanism is that the Federal Minister of the Law and Justice Division may, with the consultation of the Chief Justice of the High Court, establish as many Gas Utility Courts in a district as necessary.
3. Section 4 of the Act emphatically holds that barring the Gas Utility Court, no other court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any matter within the purview of the Act. Section 5 of the Act stipulates that the said notified Gas Utility Courts shall have the powers of a civil as well as a criminal court for the adjudication of matters falling within the scope of the said Act.
4. Via Notification No. SO No. 293(I)/2017 dated 02.05.2017, passed under section 3 of the Act, the courts of certain District and Sessions Judges were notified as Gas Utility Courts to operate within defined territorial jurisdictions. Unfortunately, an ambiguity crept in due to the wording of the Notification. The notification mentioned that the Courts so established will "exercise the powers for the trial of offenses under the said Act..." No mention was made explicitly for also adjudicating civil disputes falling within the purview of the Act.
5. This is the basis of the Respondents to argue that the Gas Utility Court(s) for adjudicating civil disputes under the Act have not been notified therefore, the jurisdiction vests with a civil court established under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For the following reasons, I respectfully disagree with the said contention.
6. The notification mentions section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act only provides for establishing an all-encompassing Gas Utility Court. It does not bifurcate between a civil or a criminal Gas Utility Court. Further, section 4, which is the operative section to determine the jurisdiction of a Gas Utility Court, stipulates that the same "shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters covered by this Act." Hence, Since the Act does not create a division between a Civil Gas Utility Court and a Criminal Gas Utility Court, delegated legislation, i.e., a notification, cannot create such a distinction for the same will be in contravention of section
4. Section 20 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that "Where by any Federal Act or Regulation, a power to issue any notification...is conferred...the expressions used in the notification...if it made after the commencement of this Act, shall unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, have the some respective meanings as in the Act or Regulation conferring the power." Even otherwise, it is settled law that delegated legislation cannot contradict the principal statute.l And in case of any contravention, the courts shall make all efforts to reconcile the inconsistency.2
7. I further note that the District and Sessions Judges have been notified as Gas Utility Courts. If, for the sake of assumption, it is argued that these were elected only for the criminal trial, then the question arises as to why the term District was also included. A District is defined in section 2(4)of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as "...the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a "District Court")." At the same time, a Court of Session is established under section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, for criminal cases. The term "District and Sessions Judge" is used cumulatively in the notification. Had the intent been to only notify for criminal trials, then the correct phrase employed would have been Sessions Judge only and not District and Sessions Judge. Even if that were the case, the same would not have been valid as the notification cannot revoke/withhold jurisdiction expressly granted by the statute under section
4. The powers of issuing the notification must fall squarely within the mandate of the principal statute. This understanding is confirmed by the opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice, bearing reference No. F.22(1)/2016-A.V dated 3.11.2021 that was sought in response to the judgment reported at SSGC v. Data CNG Filling Station (2021 MLD 568).
8. Accordingly, I have no doubt that the Gas Utility Courts established under the notification hold the jurisdiction to adjudicate civil and criminal matters per the mandate of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside, and the Gas Utility Courts are directed to proceed with adjudicating civil cases under the Act and ensuing notification.
9. Another aspect of the Impugned Order, which neither side has pleaded, has been noticed by me. The learned District Judge rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (c) as being barred by law. Nothing in the Act bars the appellants from filing a claim under the Act. The entire mechanism of the Act provides explicitly for filing such suits. Hence, the learned Judge erred in holding that the suit was legally barred as the reasoning directly conflicts with the Act. If he believed that he did not have requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter, he could, at best, have ordered for the return of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C., and not rejected the plaint.
10. All appeals are allowed. MQ/S-10/Sindh Appeals allowed.