Summary: (a) Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 — Natural Gas Regulatory Authority (Licensing) Rules, 2002 ----R. 15(2) (Decisions of the Authority); R. 10(9) (Re-opening of hearings) Licensing—Mandatory decision period—OGRA’s failure to decide application within statutory period—Effect—Petitioner’s application (20-12-2017) for license to compress, store and sell flare gas remained undecided despite OGRA’s “final determination” (15-04-2022) directing submission of specified documents, which the parties submitted on 10-05-2022—Under R. 15(2), the Authority shall decide an application within six months of filing; any extension is confined to causes beyond control, at most one month, and reasons must be recorded—OGRA neither concluded proceedings within the prescribed aggregate period nor recorded reasons for extension—Action held contrary to mandatory rule and beyond lawful authority. Cited cases: Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Anwar 2025 SCMR 153; Nadir Khan v. Qadir Hussain 2024 SCMR 770; Tri-Star Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Trisa Burstenfabrik AG Triegen 2023 SCMR 1502. (b) Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 — Natural Gas Regulatory Authority (Licensing) Rules, 2002 ----R. 10(9) Re-opening of concluded hearing—Prerequisites—OGRA fixed a further public hearing on 28-02-2023 after closing evidence and rendering a final decision—No good cause was shown nor reasons recorded as required by R. 10(9)—Such re-opening, absent a reasoned order on motion and good cause, is impermissible. (c) OGRA Ordinance, 2002 ----S. 12(2) (High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over regulated activity decisions) Maintainability—Scope of judicial review—Where no other adequate remedy exists, High Court may direct the Authority to refrain from unlawful action or to perform its legal duty—Given OGRA’s procedural lapses under the Ordinance/Rules, recourse under S. 12(2) was competent; Court’s review confined to testing procedural legality and timeliness, not merits of licensing. Cited cases: Messrs Mehran Oils (Pvt.) Ltd. v. OGRA, PLD 2021 Sindh 67. (d) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Arts. 4, 5 & 18 Fundamental rights—Regulatory delay and arbitrary inaction—OGRA’s inordinate and unreasoned delay in deciding the license application infringed the petitioner’s rights to be dealt with in accordance with law (Arts. 4 & 5) and to enter upon and conduct a lawful business (Art. 18). (e) Practice and procedure Multiplicity of proceedings—Costs—Petitioner’s resort to multiple suits at different fora for injunctive relief deprecated; costs of Rs. 100,000/- imposed. (f) Flare gas—Regulatory context (observation) OGRA’s license dated 23-07-2024 to GAP pertained to industrial usage from the same field; not a license for CNG use—Safety and policy requirements to be considered by OGRA while deciding petitioner’s application. (g) Disposition — Writ petition disposed of. OGRA directed to decide the petitioner’s 20-12-2017 licensing application strictly in accordance with law within one month; OGRA restrained from taking adverse action against the petitioner until decision; costs of Rs. 100,000/- imposed on the petitioner.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan–––Arts. 4, 9, 15, 18 & 25–––Right to movement, livelihood and dignity–––Unlawful restriction on travel–––Petitioner, a private cook employed by an Air Commodore during his posting in Italy, was repeatedly detained at the airport and prevented from travelling abroad on the pretext of being an “Army Deserter”–––Record revealed that petitioner was never an employee of any branch of the Armed Forces–––Respondents failed to produce any proof of military employment or desertion–––Held, that placing petitioner’s name on Exit Control List (ECL) without lawful authority and in absence of any credible material amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 15, 18 and 25 of the Constitution–––Such administrative action could not be sustained. (b) Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981–––S. 2–––Placing of name on Exit Control List–––Scope and limitations–––Petitioner’s name was placed on ECL on intelligence recommendation labeling him as a “deserter”–––No record or service history substantiated that claim–––Mere assumption or unverified intelligence input cannot justify curtailment of constitutional right to travel abroad–––Ministry of Interior and FIA required to act strictly within statutory framework and ensure that inclusion on ECL is supported by lawful material and due process. (c) Administrative law–––Due process and abuse of authority–––Duty of public functionaries–––Held, that no citizen may be deprived of liberty or right to travel except by due process of law–––Misuse of administrative discretion to obstruct petitioner’s lawful movement constituted abuse of power and violation of constitutional guarantees. (d) Fundamental rights–––Employment abroad–––Protection of livelihood–––Where petitioner’s overseas employment and visa renewal were jeopardized by arbitrary travel restrictions, Court intervened to protect his right to earn livelihood through lawful means abroad. Disposition: Petition allowed; respondents directed to forthwith remove petitioner’s name from Exit Control List and permit him to travel abroad.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 2-A, 3, 4, 9, 14, 18 & 25---Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A, 22-B, 54 & 55---Police Rules, 1934---Protection against unlawful harassment---Scope---Petitioners alleged continued harassment by police despite securing protective orders from Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Held, that the State’s power to investigate and prosecute offences must be exercised strictly in accordance with law---Arbitrary arrest, detention, or coercive measures without registration of a cognizable offence or in defiance of judicial directions constitute a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 4, 9, and 14 of the Constitution---Once the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has issued directions restraining police harassment, such orders are binding unless modified or set aside by a competent Court---Disregard of such judicial orders amounts to abuse of authority and negation of rule of law---Police officials are under statutory obligation to act fairly and lawfully in every case. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Judicial protection---Scope and effect---Where judicial protection has already been extended by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., the police are bound to comply with such directives and cannot initiate retaliatory or arbitrary actions against citizens---Failure to observe such protection invites judicial interference under Art.199, Constitution. Disposition: Petition allowed; Respondents directed not to harass or summon Petitioners or their family members unlawfully; any actionable information to be processed strictly in accordance with Ss. 54 & 55, Cr.P.C., and judicial safeguards; police to comply with orders of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace in letter and spirit.