2013 PLP 47 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD BADAR ALAM — Petitioner Versus OIL AND GAS REGULARTORY AUTHORITY, through Secretary, Faisalabad and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 47 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BADAR ALAM — Petitioner Versus OIL AND GAS REGULARTORY AUTHORITY, through Secretary, Faisalabad and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 47 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 47 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 47 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD BADAR ALAM — Petitioner Versus OIL AND GAS REGULARTORY AUTHORITY, through Secretary, Faisalabad and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Badar Alam for Petitioner.
- Umar Sharif for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional Petition
Petitioner assailed bill for use of Gas issued to him by Gas company on the ground that new slab formula had been applied in the said bill and same was not warranted under the law
Company contended that only after public notices were issued and after considering and dealing with a number of objections, the new slab formula was approved and applied in bills; and the petitioner had failed to respond to the said public notices and had not objected at that stage
Gas connection was in the name of another consumer and not the petitioner
Held, that petitioner had no locus standi in the constitutional petition and was estopped by his own conduct
Constitutional petition was dismissed, accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.
Petitioner's grievance is that the bill issued to the petitioner by the respondent by applying new slab formula is not warranted under law.
2. The respondents have filed the para wise comments wherein it has been stated that prior to approval of slab formula which is applied in the bill w.e.f. 1-1-2010 public notices were issued in all the leading national newspapers whereafter, public hearings were held in all the major cities of the country. A large number of objections were received which were duly considered and dealt with. Thereafter, the current formula of the bill was given which is available at page 42 of the reply vide notification dated 8-1-2010. The learned counsel has stated that Serial No.1 deals with the domestic sector and the slabs are as follows:-- a Upto 2003 M3 per month Rs./MMBTU i 0-50 M3 per month 95.01 ii Over 50-upto 100 M3 per month 99.48 iii Over 100-upto 200 M3 per month 181.10 b Over 200 M3-upto 300 M3 per month i 0-100 M3 per month 99.48 ii Over 100-upto 200 M3 per month 181.10 iii Over 200-upto 300 M3 per month 383.42
3. Further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that as the petitioner has failed to respond to the said public notices and had raised no objection at that stage, therefore, the petitioner is estoped from raising any objection at this stage. The contention of the respondent is also that the petitioner has no locus standi as the consumer is Sh. Abdul Amin and the gas connection is not in the name of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also pointed out to Annex-B at pages 8 and 9 of the writ petition being the bills of Sh. A. Hameed and has drawn the attention of the Court that the bills are strictly in accordance with slab formula which has been made effective w.e.f. 1-1-2010. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that no bill has been issued with retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to controvert this statement and to show any bill issued to him with the revised tariff prior to January, 2010.
4. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has no locus standi and is estoped by his own conduct. As such this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. KMZ/M-361/L Petition dismissed.