Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SITARA CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES VS Respondent: FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through SecretaryPetroleum Ministry of Petroleum, IslamabadHonorable Justice Shahid KarimAdnan Ahmad
2020 C L C Note 18 [Lahore] Before Shahid Karim, J SITARA CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES---Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through SecretaryPetroleum Ministry of Petroleum, Islamabad and 4 others---Respondents Writ Petition No. 27383 of 2019, decided on 16th September, 2019. Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199--- Constitutional petition--- Scope--- Sui gas consumer seeking direction for fixed gas charges according to decision of the Cabinet---Validity---Petitioner had not placed on record any document as a decision of the Cabinet in support of his claim---Authorities had denied the claim of petitioner in their reply---Petitioner had failed to prove his entitlement for supply of gas at alleged charges---Claim of petitioner being based on presumption and surmises, no relief could be extended to the petitioner unless a right had arisen out of the decision made by a public authority---Sui Gas Company had right to determine gas charges from time to time pursuant to the prevalent policy---Petitioner had executed gas sale agreement with the Company and he could not turn around and claim supply of gas in a certain ratio---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Adnan Ahmad for Petitioner. Umer Sharif for SNGPL. Azmat H. Lodhi, Assistant Attorney-General. ORDER SHAHID KARIM, J.---This constitutional petition seeks implementation of a purported decision made by ECC and rectified by the Cabinet whereby the gas consumers of general industry were directed to be charged at the ratio of 28:72 from March to November in a calendar year. 2. Reply has been filed on behalf of SNGPL in which the claim of the petitioner has been denied. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to place on record any document which would purport to be a decision of the Cabinet to this effect. The grievance of the petitioner arose out of a gas bill remitted to it in which the ratio, according to the learned counsel, has not been maintained. It is reiterated that the petitioner has placed no document on record which would show the entitlement of the petitioner to the supply of gas at such a ratio. The claim of the petitioner is based on presumptions and surmises and no relief can be extended to the petitioner unless a right has arisen out of the decision made by a public authority. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 a reference has been made to the various clauses of the agreement executed between the petitioner and SNGPL and in terms of supplemental gas sales agreement dated 21.11.2016 signed between the petitioner and SNGPL it was agreed that SNGPL shall supply RLNG to the petitioner and that quantity of RLNG to be supplied shall be determined by SNGPL from time to time pursuant to the prevalent policy. Having agreed to the term referred to above the petitioner cannot now turn around and claim supply of has in a certain ratio more particularly when there is no decision of ECC which supports the case of the petitioner. 3. In view of the above, this petition is without merit and is dismissed. ZC/S-77/L Petition dismissed.