The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources has filed a contempt petition in Supreme Court against Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra) for increasing gas price of Salsabil gas field despite advice of the ministry-as the case has not yet been decided by the apex court.
According to details, on February 17, 2011, Supreme Court had directed in the presence of Attorney General of Pakistan that with reference to gas pricing the present arrangement should continue till the next hearing. However, Ogra issued a notification increasing the price from 2.8 dollars per mmbtu to 3.9999 dollars per mmbtu violating apex court directions.
That CPLA No 1983 of 2010 - contents of which may be read as part of this petition - was fixed before the apex court on February 17, 2011 when the court was pleased to direct as follows: "Important questions arise in this case relating to the role of the learned Attorney General under the Constitution and under the Rules of Business framed by the Federal Government. To consider these questions leave to appeal is granted. The matter can be heard by this Bench or by a larger Bench deemed appropriate by the Chief Justice. Let the file be placed before the Chief Justice for orders."
A case had been filed by the government against the judgement of Lahore High Court (LHC) of May 14, 2010 in a writ petition No 3708/2010 pending before the Supreme Court and fixed for hearing on February 17, 2011. The petroleum ministry has made chairman Ogra, Member Finance/Vice Chairman Ogra and Member Gas Ogra as parties to the case. Since only a short constitutional/legal point is involved in the case, the office may fix the appeal next month. Until then, the present arrangement shall continue."
"That in shocking disregard of this order, and for no purpose except to defeat the scope and effect of this order, chairman Ogra, Member Finance/Vice Chairman Ogra and Member Gas Ogra attempted to up set the "present arrangement" and notified the gas well head price by increasing the same from 2.8274 dollars to 3.8999 dollars per MMBTU through notification dated February 17, 2011 (the "Notification") ie on the very day that this honourable court passed its order," the petition added.
That before February 17, 2011, CPLA 1983 of 2010 was fixed on January 19, 2011 and Ogra Member Finance was duly represented by the learned Counsel. Moreover, the petitioner in its letter dated February 7, 2011 had clearly conveyed the orders of the apex court dated January 19, 2011.
Chairman Ogra, Member Finance/Vice Chairman Ogra and Member Gas Ogra were, therefore, fully aware that CPLA 1983/20 10 was next fixed for February 17, 2011 before the apex court. On February 17, 2011 too, Ogra was represented by its Counsel and was on notice about the petitioner seeking status quo orders. The fact that chairman Ogra, Member Finance/Vice Chairman Ogra and Member Gas Ogra, proceeded to upset the "present arrangement" referred to in this apex court's order and issued the notification on the same day can mean nothing except that it was an audacious attempt to thwart the orders of the court, which constitutes gross contempt.
Notify the price by taking into account the opinion of the then Attorney General of Pakistan Malik Mohammad Qayum. When this was not done, a collusive contempt petition was filed against the chairman Ogra, Member Finance/Vice Chairman Ogra and Member Gas Ogra. It may be noted that the contempt petition was not filed against chairman Orga and Member Gas Ogra who had actually been ordered by the High Court to notify prices. It is clear that since the direction had been issued to Chairman Ogra and Member Finance Ogra in the writ petition and not to Ogra (Respondent 3) no contempt had been committed by Respondent No: 3 regardless of the legal position that it is actually Ogra, which notifies prices under the law.
However, because the present respondents (ie members of Ogra/Respondent No: 3 in the writ petition) and the working interest owner were hand in glove with each other, the present respondents readily agreed before the High Court to notify prices within 14 days ie by February 23, 2011. Again, as submitted above, it may be noted that the Respondents were aware, both through their counsel and through letters sent to them by the Petitioner, on February 7, 2011 that CPLA 1983/10 had been filed against the order of the High Court in W.P 3 708/09 and that the CPLA including stay matter was fixed before this honourable court on February 7. If at all they felt compelled to notify the price in purported compliance of the High Court's order of February 9, they could have done so after the CPLA hearing before this honourable court on February 17 and could even have raised the question of compliance of the High Court's order in that hearing. Notifying the prices right on the date on which the stay matter came up before this honourable court and stay order was passed is gross contempt of this honourable court.
It is once again reiterated that the order dated February 17, 2011 was passed in the presence of Counsel(s) of Ogra and therefore, the Respondents were aware of it and its implications. It is obvious that the notification was issued in an attempt to circumvent the order of this Honourable Court. The notification in fact was issued hurriedly on February 17, 2011 since the Respondents knew that this honourable court had already directed that the "present arrangement was to continue."
Beneficiary of their act was a private party in as much as that the notification aims to give benefit to Dewan Petroleum at the cost of the government of Pakistan and public at large. That the contempt is still continuing in spite of the letter of the petitioner dated 25-02-201 1 advising respondent No 2(OGRA) to withdraw the said notification. A copy of the letter dated 25-02-2011 is attached herewith as Annexure E.
That it is crystal clear from submissions hereinabove that issuance of the Notification was a calculated move by Respondents No 1 to 3 with the sole purpose to nullify the status quo order dated February 17, 2011 granted by this Honourable Court. Under the circumstances, it is prayed that Respondents No 1 to 3 may be proceeded against for committing contempt of this Honourable Court.
Comments
Comments are closed.