ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that Gas Utility Court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all matters under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016.

The judgment authored by Justice Ayesha A Malik said under the Act, the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) does not enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Gas Utility Court.

It said OGRA is, at best, a dispute resolution forum where disputes may be resolved informally; however, the Gas Utility Court is a court with all its inherent powers which has the authority to adjudicate upon and award punishment against offences made out under the 2016 Act, it added. The OGRA has approached the apex court against the Islamabad High Court and the Lahore High Court judgments.

Loss-cutting targets: PM Secretariat seeks report on gas utilities’ failure

The OGRA case was that it has concurrent jurisdiction with the Gas Utility Court with respect to the prosecution of disputes of consumers in light of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and the Complaint Resolution Procedure (for Natural Gas, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and refined oil products) Regulations, 2003 (Regulations).

The case of OGRA is that, as the regulator of the petroleum industry, it was exclusively empowered to resolve disputes in respect of activities it regulates which included complaints filed by consumers against its licensees. Now, pursuant to the 2016 Act, the OGRA enjoys concurrent jurisdiction with the Gas Utility Court, as the jurisdiction of the Gas Utility Court is subject to Section 5(5) and (6) of the 2016 Act which provides that a gas consumer can seek any remedy before any other court, tribunal or forum as is available under the law. Hence, the 2016 Act cannot curtail the OGRA’s jurisdiction.

It was also asserted that the OGRA provides a timely and efficient means of resolving disputes and this role of the OGRA should be recognised and upheld by the Court.

The judgment noted that the powers and functions of the OGRA are set out in Section 6 of the Ordinance and Section (6) (2) (i) and (k) provides that the OGRA shall resolve complaints and other claims against licensees for contravention of the provisions of the Ordinance, rules or regulations and shall resolve disputes between licensees, between licensees and any other person regarding a regulated activity. As per the Ordinance, a regulated activity is anything that requires a license.

The Regulations provide for a detailed mechanism to resolve complaints against the licensee.

The nature of complaints before the OGRA provided under Regulation 3 are such that any person can submit an application to the registrar regarding any act or omission by a licensee or dealer that violates the Ordinance, rules, regulations, an order of OGRA or license terms.

A complaint can also be filed for non-compliance with service standards which includes billing, connection and disconnection of service, metering, undue delays in providing service, safety practices, quantity and quality of natural gas, LPG or CNG, or discriminatory practices of the licensee or dealer.

The court noted that the regulations do not provide any punishment for the complaints filed under Regulation 3. Instead, the designated officer is to render a decision in an effort to resolve the dispute as per Regulation 7 (2) by proposing a remedy and giving an implementation plan.

The only punishment prescribed under the Ordinance is under Section 25 which states that any person who undertakes any regulated activity in contravention of this Ordinance or recklessly undertakes such regulated activity or interferes with regulated activity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to three years or with a fine or with both. Therefore, OGRA regulates its activities under the Ordinance and can hold a person responsible and liable to punishment with reference to regulated activities.

The 2016 Act, on the other hand, is a special statue which as per its preamble to provide for prosecution of cases of gas theft and other offences relating to gas and to provide a procedure for recovery of amounts due.

Section 3 of the 2016 Act constitutes the Gas Utility Courts and Section 4 confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Gas Utility Court with respect to all matters that are covered by the 2016 Act including tampering with gas pipelines, its distribution, gas metering or damaging or destroying the transmission or transportation lines, or maliciously wasting gas or injuring works.

Therefore, the 2016 Act vests exclusive jurisdiction with the Gas Utility Court to resolve all matters defined in Section 2, enumerated in Sections 14 to 19 as it has an overriding effect over all laws.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023