PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

GENERAL MANAGER, SNGPL, PESHAWAR vs AL-MADINA CNG FILLING STATION, PESHAWAR S — 2022 PLD 213 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Citation
2022 PLD 213 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Court
Peshawar High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
PLD
Parties
GENERAL MANAGER, SNGPL, PESHAWAR vs AL-MADINA CNG FILLING STATION, PESHAWAR S
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 11---C; S. 11; Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

GENERAL MANAGER, SNGPL, PESHAWAR VS AL-MADINA CNG FILLING STATION, PESHAWAR S. 11---Correction of excessive bill---Civil Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Suit for declaration and injunction---Respondent/plaintiff was aggrieved of excessive bill issued by petitioners/authorities---Petitioners/ authorities raised the plea that jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under S.11 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002---Validity---Such type of complaint was not dealt with under the provision of S.11 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002---Respondent/plaintiff assailed sending of excessive billing and jurisdiction of Civil Court was not barred under Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002---Both the courts below rightly assumed jurisdiction and decided controversy between parties---In absence of laboratory report, stance of petitioners/authorities could not be proved and any finding was based on surmises and conjunctures---Meter in question was removed on 19-10-2011 and excessive bills were sent to the respondent / plaintiff for months of August and September 2011---Disputed bills were sent prior to removal of meter---Both the Courts below rightly held that bills in question were sent to respondent/ plaintiff without any legal justification---Concurrent findings of facts of Courts below, if based on proper appreciation of evidence could not be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction because such jurisdiction was meant only to rectify jurisdictional defect and material irregularities resulting in miscarriage of justice---High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Head Notes

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English