Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH Court AT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P.No.15232 of 2012
Samina Anwaar Ullah Khan Vs General Manager SNGPL
Lahore, etc

JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing 30.08.2012.
Petitioner By: Mr. Ashfaq A. Malik, Advocate.
Respondents By: Mr. Umar Sharif, Advocate with Syed
Ijaz Mehboob Billing Officer.
Ayesha A. Malik.J: Through this petition, the
Petitioner has prayed for the restoration of the domestic gas
connection installed at her premises.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner is a registered

consumer of the Respondent gas company bearing Consumer
No.90635916415. Meter No.MG27030734 is installed at her
premises for domestic gas consumption. On 25.05.2012 the
said meter was disconnected and the Petitioner was deprived
of the gas connection at her premises. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner has also stated that the premises of the Petitioner is
divided into two portions i.e lower and upper portion. Two
separate meters have been installed for domestic gas
connection in the said two portions. The dispute of the
Petitioner pertains to Meter No.MG27030734, which is
installed in the lower portion.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondents has filed the report

and parawise comments and also placed on record certain
documents to justify the disconnection. It is his case that the
Respondents have acted in accordance with law. Both meters
W.P.No.15232-12 2

installed at the premises of the Petitioner were for domestic

consumption. However, they were being used for commercial
purposes. Hence the Respondents were justified in
disconnecting the gas supply. In this regard, they have placed
reliance on the report of the inspection teams, which report
shows that the Petitioner’s consumption was not domestic but
in fact being used for commercial purposes as it was being
used by a restaurant.

4. The dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent

gas company is that the Petitioner is the consumer of the
Respondent gas company bearing Consumer No.90635916415
and accordingly Meter No.MG27030734 is installed in the
lower portion of the premises of the Petitioner. The Petitioner
occupies the lower portion and she has rented out the upper
portion where the business of a restaurant is being conducted.
Admittedly, the premises of the Petitioner has two gas
connections. The aforementioned connection is in the lower
portion and there is another connection which is for the upper
portion of the premises of the Petitioner. It is the case of the
Petitioner that there was a default with respect to the billing of
the meter installed in the upper portion. However, in order to
induce payment, the Respondents have disconnected the gas
supply of the Petitioner’s premises being the lower portion of
the Petitioner’s house.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the

record available on the file.

6. The basic dispute is in relation to the gas connection for

the lower portion of the house i.e for Meter No.MG27030734
vide Consumer No.90635916415. The Petitioner has placed
reliance on bills for the months of March & May, 2012 to show
that she is not a defaulter and there was no occasion to
W.P.No.15232-12 3

disconnect the gas supply. The Respondents have placed

reliance on the report of Senior Distribution Engineer (UFG-C)
which provides that on 25.05.2012 the meter of the Petitioner
was disconnected as it was being used for commercial
purposes and not for domestic purposes. In this regard, the
report provides that one small tandoor and three star burners
were being used by the Petitioner against the said meter. It
has been argued that the said equipment was being used in
the upper portion. When the meter was disconnected from the
upper portion on 10.05.2012, the star burners were being
used by the lower portion. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
disputes this allegation and states that no such burner or
tandoor was being used and that in fact this is only being
alleged to ensure payment against the bill issued for the upper
portion.
7. The dispute of the Petitioner requires a factual inquiry as
to whether the Petitioner was using the domestic gas
connection for commercial purposes. It is settled law that in
Constitutional Jurisdiction detailed inquiry cannot be
undertaken. Reliance is placed on a case titled “Anjuman Fruit
Arhtian and other Vs Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and
others” (2011 SCMR 279) wherein it was held that:-
“This extraordinary jurisdiction is intended
primarily, for providing an expeditious remedy in a
case where the illegality of the impugned action of
an executive or other authority can be established
without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or
disputed facts. Controverted questions of fact,
adjudication on which is possible only after
obtaining all types of evidence in power and
possession of parties can be determined only by
courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matter and
on such ground constitutional petition was
incompetent.”

In this regard, it is also noted that an efficacious remedy is

available under the Complaint Resolution Procedure, 2003
W.P.No.15232-12 4

(2003 Regulations) issued by the Oil and Gas Regulatory

Authority. The 2003 Regulations provide for a complaint
resolution system. Any person may submit an application for
any act or thing done or omitted to be done by a licensee or
dealer. The Regulations also provide for the redressal of the
following under the Regulations:-
(b) Non-compliance by the licensee or dealer with
the service standards in the areas including but not
limited to;
(i) Billing and overcharging;
(ii) Connection and disconnection of service;
(iii) Metering;
(iv) Undue delay in providing service;
(v) Safety practices; or
(vi) Quantity and quality of natural gas, LPG or
CNG being supplied; or

The Petitioner’s dispute should be redressed by this complaint

cell as it involves a factual inquiry, possibly even evidence to
determine whether or not there has been any non compliance
in the service standards in the areas specified in Regulation 3
(b). Furthermore, Regulation 9 provides for an appeal against
the order, if the complainant is not satisfied with the decision
under 2003 Regulations. Therefore, the 2003 Regulations
provide for an adequate remedy to the Petitioner in relation to
her dispute of wrongful disconnection of service in the supply
of gas. The remedy of a statutory appeal is adequate and
effective and as such there is no basis to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the prayer sought by
the Petitioner cannot be granted without a factual inquiry on
the issue of whether the Petitioner was using the domestic
connection for commercial purposes and also because an
efficacious and adequate remedy is available to the Petitioner,
which she may avail if she so desires.
 W.P.No.15232-12 5

8. In view of the aforementioned, this petition having no

merit is dismissed.

(AYESHA A. MALIK)
JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

JUDGE
Anwaar*