Summary: Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016)--- ----Ss. 6, 7 & 13---Gas theft, allegation of---Suit for recovery---Dismissal of suit on the basis of acquittal of accused in a related criminal case---Legality---Judgment acquitting the accused in a criminal case is not binding on civil matters and does not preclude institution and prosecution of a civil suit for recovery of dues---Civil and criminal proceedings---Distinct standard of proof---Appellant/Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SNGPL), filed a summary suit for recovery against the respondent under S. 6 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 (the Act) alleging gas theft---The appellant claimed that during an inspection the respondent's gas meter was found tampered with, having a broken index and glass---A joint gas load survey was conducted, and the meter was replaced---The meter was later tested in respondent's presence and again found tampered---An FIR was lodged, and the appellant's claim assessment committee determined a loss of Rs. 439,700/---The appellant prayed for recovery of the amount and other reliefs, however, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in limine, citing the respondent's acquittal in the related criminal case---Pivotal question for determination by the High Court was as to "Whether a civil suit for recovery was maintainable under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, despite the acquittal of the accused in the corresponding criminal proceedings?"---Held: The standard of proof in criminal proceedings (beyond a reasonable doubt) was distinct from the standard of proof in civil proceedings (preponderance of probability)---Acquittal of an accused in a criminal case did not, in itself, preclude the institution and successful prosecution of a civil suit for the recovery of dues---Consequently, the findings of a criminal court were not determinative of the outcome in a civil court addressing related matters---The determinations rendered in criminal proceedings did not ipso facto dictate the adjudication of civil liabilities---In the present case, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in limine based solely on the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case, without considering the merits of the civil claim or adhering to the due procedure as laid down under Ss. 6 & 7 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016---Section 6 of the Act authorizes both consumers and gas utility companies to file cases before gas utility courts under applicable civil or criminal procedure laws, supported by relevant documents such as gas bills or service agreements---It outlines the procedural requirements for institution of the suits, including specific content to be included in the plaint, particularly for utility companies, and establishes methods for serving summons through personal delivery, postal or courier services, and newspaper publication---Section 7 governs the defendant's right to contest the suit by mandating an application for leave to defend within 21 days of service---This application must be accompanied by a written statement identifying legal or factual disputes and supported by relevant documents---Failure to file such an application, or to meet its requirements, allows the Court to treat the claims as admitted and pass a decree accordingly---The Court may grant leave to defend only if substantial questions of law or fact are raised, and may impose conditions such as the deposit of claimed dues---Utility Court is also empowered to frame issues relating to such substantial questions, attach conditions to the grant of leave, and record evidence on those issues---In these circumstances, the approach adopted by the Trial Court was contrary to the spirit and intent of law---Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was unsustainable in law and could not be upheld---Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial court to be decided afresh on its own merits, strictly in accordance with the procedure stipulated under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, and in adherence to the principles of natural justice---Appeal was accepted, in circumstances. Karachi Transport Corporation and another v. Muhammad Hanif and others 2009 SCMR 1005 and Salman Ashraf v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others 2023 SCMR 1292 rel. Shakeel Ahmed Abro for Appellant. Gulsher Junejo for Respondent. Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate General for Government of Sindh. Date of hearing: 5th May, 2025.

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court in R.F.As. Nos.35, 89 and 143 of 2018). (a) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016)--- ----S. 6---Suits before Gas Utility Courts---Billing dispute---Excessive bills---Respondents/consumers filed suit before Gas Utility Court for excessive bills issued by petitioner/Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited---Trial Court rejected the plaint on the plea that respondents/consumers had alternate remedy available to them---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction allowed appeal and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh on merits---Validity---Equitable and expeditious remedy for filing a complaint or suit, as the case may be, for resolving disputes regarding billing or metering has been provided under section 6 of Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, both to the Company and consumers---Statute or its provisions must be construed effectively and operatively, as per the maxim "ut res magis valeat quam pereat"---Trial Court, while non-suiting respondents/ consumers, primarily focused on Preamble of Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016---High Court rightly held that issues of overbilling, including overcharging of Gas Calorific Value (GCV), penalties, and estimated bills due to meter stoppage, fell within the scope of section 6 of Gas (Theft, Control and Recovery) Act, 2016---Lawsuit was within the exclusive jurisdiction of Gas Utility Court---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Salmond on Jurisprudence (12th ed.), by P. J. Fitzgerald, M.A., at page 132; Heydon's Case (1584) 76 ER 637; Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (12th ed.), at page 228 and Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (4th, ed.), at page 810 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Preamble---Object, purpose and scope---Preamble can play both constructive and contextual roles in statutory interpretation---If scope of Preamble is narrower than that of a substantive section, the statutory provision in such an enactment cannot be restricted inconsiderately merely because Preamble of statute is narrower---Straightforward and uncomplicated provision in any law cannot be controlled, restrained, or limited by a narrow Preamble---Equally, a wide-ranging Preamble cannot be deemed to have automatically enlarged scope of any law---In interpreting any statute, Court must adopt holistic approach---There are two vivid rules of interpretation: first, Preamble of any law may articulate the purpose the Legislature intended to achieve; and second, if enactment and its provisions are well defined and unequivocal, Preamble cannot be relied upon solely to expurgate or override express provisions of law without considering its pith and substance. (c) Maxim--- ----Generalia specialibus non derogant---Connotation---Latin maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant" means "things general do not derogate from things special"---This is a routine tenet of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that where there is a conflict between general and special law, the special law prevails. (d) Maxim--- ----"Ejusdem generis" and "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"---Connotation---Latin maxims "ejusdem generis" and "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" exemplify that when two rules or laws exist, one general and one specific, the specific rule takes precedence over general rule. (e) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Intent of lawmaker---Scope---At the heart of various rules of interpretation, the most important rule is to remain faithful to intent of lawmaker and adopt an interpretation which supports attainment of statute's objective---With such approach, whenever two interpretations are plausible or achievable, Court ought to prefer the interpretation that expands a remedy and represses mischief---Court should also avoid and eschew interpretations that render statute or its provisions ineffective without good reason---Court should sustain elementary objective of statute---If words are clear and free from vagueness or uncertainty, then there is no need to turn to other mediums of interpretation---If words are vague or ambiguous, then Court may rely on internal support for accurate interpretation. Ch. Hafeez Ullah Yaqub, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th October, 2024.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Maintainability of suit before Gas Utility Court---Scope of jurisdiction under the Gas (Theft, Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 (“2016 Act”)---The Gas Utility Court rejected the respondents’ plaints based on the availability of alternate remedies under the Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) Ordinance, 2002, and its Complaint Resolution Procedure---High Court remanded the suits to the Gas Utility Court, holding that billing and metering disputes, including overbilling and penalties, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Gas Utility Court under Section 6 of the 2016 Act---Held, the 2016 Act explicitly provides consumers and Gas Utility Companies the right to file suits before the Gas Utility Court for billing disputes, and its provisions override any conflicting remedies under other laws---High Court’s judgment, emphasizing purposive statutory interpretation, correctly acknowledged consumers’ right to approach the Gas Utility Court directly, without being confined to OGRA mechanisms. (b) Statutory interpretation ----Preamble and substantive provisions---Interpretation of statutes---Scope---A preamble cannot restrict or override clear and unequivocal substantive provisions of the law---Courts must adopt a purposive approach to interpretation, ensuring the legislative intent is achieved while avoiding absurdity or injustice---Where a specific statute provides exclusive remedies, such remedies override general laws or alternate dispute resolution mechanisms---The 2016 Act’s overriding effect under Section 31 reinforces its exclusivity for resolving gas-related disputes. ----Cited Cases: • 2014 SCMR 531 (Syntron Limited v. Huma Ijaz and others) • 2023 SCMR 755 (Province of the Punjab through Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Akram and others) • 2011 SCMR 1591 (Muhammad Arif and others v. District & Sessions Judge, Sialkot and others) ----Disposition: Civil Petitions dismissed, and leave to appeal refused. The High Court’s judgment remanding the matter to the Gas Utility Court for decision on merits was upheld.

Summary: (a) Gas (Theft, Control & Recovery) Act, 2016: ----S. 6---Jurisdiction of Gas Utility Courts Scope and jurisdiction of Gas Utility Courts under the Gas (Theft, Control & Recovery) Act, 2016---Section 6 provides an equitable and expeditious remedy for filing complaints or suits regarding disputes on billing, metering, or default before Gas Utility Courts---Gas Utility Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters covered under the Act, which include disputes related to billing, penalties, and recovery of outstanding dues---Held, consumers are not barred from directly invoking the jurisdiction of the Gas Utility Court even if an alternate dispute resolution mechanism exists under the OGRA Ordinance, 2002. (b) Statutory Interpretation: ----Role of preamble in interpretation of statutes The preamble of a statute plays a contextual role in interpreting legislative intent but cannot restrict or override the express provisions of the statute---Court held that the Trial Court erred in relying solely on the preamble of the 2016 Act to restrict the scope of the statute---A holistic approach to interpretation must be adopted, ensuring the substantive provisions align with the legislative intent. (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint Trial Court rejected the plaint under O. VII, R. 11, CPC, on grounds of non-maintainability due to the availability of an alternate remedy under the OGRA Ordinance, 2002---Held, Section 6 of the 2016 Act explicitly allows consumers to approach Gas Utility Courts for resolving billing disputes, making the rejection of plaint unjustified. (d) Special Law vs. General Law: ----Applicability of special laws Special laws like the Gas (Theft, Control & Recovery) Act, 2016, override general laws when they provide a specific framework for resolving disputes---The rule generalia specialibus non derogant (general provisions do not override specific provisions) was applied to uphold the exclusive jurisdiction of Gas Utility Courts. (e) Purposive Interpretation: ----Maxim: ut res magis valeat quam pereat Court emphasized the principle of purposive interpretation, holding that statutes must be construed to promote their purpose and remedy mischief---Statutes should not be rendered ineffective by narrow interpretations of their provisions. (f) Role of Legislative Intent in Statutory Interpretation: Court underscored that the interpretation of statutes must remain faithful to legislative intent---Literal interpretations that lead to absurd results must yield to interpretations aligned with the statute’s objectives, applying principles established in Heydon’s Case and other jurisprudential sources. ----Disposition: Civil Petitions dismissed; leave to appeal refused. The Islamabad High Court’s judgment remanding the suits to the Gas Utility Court for a decision on merits upheld.

Summary: Background: M/s. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (appellant) filed a Regular First Appeal (RFA) seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the consolidated judgment and decree dated 17.03.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. The appellant's suit for recovery of Rs.12,19,57,918/- was dismissed, while the respondent's (M/s. Bhatti Fabrics) suit for declaration, mandatory, and permanent injunction was decreed. The appeal was filed after the prescribed period, and the appellant sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. 2- Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to a case governed by the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016. 3- Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Condonation of Delay: The court noted that the appeal was initially filed on 07.05.2022, within the limitation period. However, the office raised objections, and the appeal was re-filed on 08.06.2024, after a delay of over two years. The appellant's reason for the delay was that the case file was misplaced and mixed up with other files. The court found this explanation insufficient and unconvincing. ---Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1908: The court held that the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, which is a special law, provides a limitation period of 30 days for filing an appeal. Therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908, a general law, do not apply. The court emphasized that special laws take precedence over general laws. ---Limitation Period: The court found that the appeal was filed after a substantial delay, and the appellant failed to remove the office objections within the stipulated time. The court ruled that the statutory remedy of appeal cannot be left open indefinitely, and the delay in re-filing the appeal was not justified. The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself as time-barred. The court also expressed concern over the negligent conduct of the appellant's officers and officials, which led to the delay and potential monetary loss to the company. The Managing Director of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited was directed to conduct a thorough inquiry and take action against the responsible officers and officials. ----Citations/Precedents: Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. and another Vs. Soneri Bank Ltd. and another (2018 CLD 203) Messrs MCB Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2014 PTD 1874) Asad Ali and 9 others Vs. The Bank of Punjab and others (PLD 2020 SC 736) Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Rashid (1997 SCMR 1224) Zulfiqar Ahmad Vs Malik Sarfraz (deceased) through his L.Rs., etc. [C.P.No.1334-L/2021] Ainuddin and others Vs. Abdullah and another (2019 SCMR 880) Shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen (2006 SCMR 631) Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. VS Collector of Sales Tax and others (2013 SCMR 587) Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali VS Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi” (2014 SCMR 1594) Ashiq Hussain Sabri Vs Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab & 8 Others (PLD 2011 Lahore 490 (D.B)) Muhammad Din Vs Abdul Ghani & Another (2012 SCMR 1004) ----Quote: Appeal under Section 13 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016--- Period of filing such appeal is 30 days. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908--- Appeal initially filed within time--- Office raised certain objections granting 3 days' time to remove said objection---Appeal re-filed after 749 days with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? Held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under special enactment, wherein a specific period of limitation is provided--- Special Law always takes preference over the general law. Appeal dismissed being barred by limitation? Court ordered for holding of inquiry and recovery of the amount of claim in the suit from the delinquent officials of the appellant company.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & S.104---Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016), S.13---Temporary injunction against disconnection and transfer of gas meter sought---Pre-condition---Temporary injunction, refusal of---Petitioner preferred an appeal under S.13 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, (Act) against the order of dismissal of application for temporary injunction passed by the Gas Utility Court---Contention of the appellant was that after dissolution of business partnership with the private respondent, the business of the shop and gas meter installed thereon was left in the ownership of the appellant through private settlement---Validity---Private respondent had remained co-partner with the appellant in the business and thereafter, their partnership was dissolved through their private settlement, however, he denied the factum of selling out the subject gas meter to the appellant and the same was still in his name---Private respondent had sold out the meter to another person against consideration---Official respondents highlighted that the appellant was not their consumer and according to their official record, the gas meter was installed in the name of private respondent---For grant of temporary injunction under O.XXXIX R.2, C.P.C., appellant was required to establish the existence of three essential ingredients i.e., a prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss if the interim injunction was not granted in his favour, however, he had not been able to establish the aforesaid ingredients, thus, appellant had no case for grant of temporary injunction---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Javed Iqbal and 5 others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and 4 others 2022 CLC 502 and Shahzad Trade Links through Sole Proprietor and another v. MTW Pak Assembling Industries (Private) Limited through Representative and others 2016 CLC 83 rel. Shabir Ahmad Khan (Dawlatkhel for Appellant. Fazal Rabi, Supervisor, SNGPL on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 7. Pukhtun Wali for Respondent No. 8. Date of hearing: 26th October, 2023.

Summary: Background:This case involves an appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dismissing the petitioner's first appeal in a civil suit filed by Muhammad Arshad against Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL). The suit sought correction of a gas utility bill and relief from recovery and disconnection of gas supply. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of Arshad, setting aside the gas consumption bill challenged in the suit but allowing SNGPL to recover the cost of the meter.---Issues:Whether the High Court properly considered the requirements of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 in dismissing the petitioner's appeal.Whether the trial court's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and followed the appropriate procedures.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, finding no illegality or perversity in its order. The petitioner argued that its appeal to the High Court was filed in accordance with the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, but the High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish proper service of notice to the respondent. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court also considered the merits of the case and found that the petitioner had not provided convincing evidence to support its position. The trial court's decision was based on the evidence presented, including the failure of SNGPL to follow proper procedures for assessing gas theft charges. The Supreme Court concluded that the burden of proof lay with the petitioner, and it had failed to meet that burden.---Quote:Discussion: (1) Section 13 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 read with Order XXXXIII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. (2) SOP for dealing the theft cases of gas approved by OGRA (3) Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. (4) Lawsuits are decided on preponderance of evidence and the Court has to see which party has discharged the onus of proof.

Summary: (Gas Utility Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide gas theft cases) The specific issue at hand is whether OGRA has concurrent jurisdiction with the Gas Utility Court or if the Gas Utility Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters covered by the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016. OGRA argues that it has the authority to resolve consumer complaints, while the gas companies (Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited) argue that the 2016 Act provides a detailed mechanism for redressal of consumer complaints and limits OGRA's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court analyzes the relevant provisions of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, and the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016. It concludes that the Gas Utility Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters defined in the 2016 Act, including gas theft and other gas-related offenses. While OGRA can entertain complaints against licensees under its Regulations, it does not enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Gas Utility Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismisses OGRA's argument and upholds the exclusive jurisdiction of the Gas Utility Court in resolving disputes covered by the 2016 Act.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, seeking relief against fines imposed by the Sui Southern Gas Company for alleged tampering with a gas meter and unauthorized gas usage. The petitioner claimed that the gas meter was damaged due to an accident, and despite informing the authorities, a false FIR was lodged against him. He sought the return or adjustment of Rs. 642,500, which he had paid, and restoration of his gas connection after being acquitted of the criminal charges. -----Issues: 1- Whether the constitutional petition is maintainable given that an alternate remedy under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, was available. -----2- Whether the petitioner could bypass the procedures set out under the Act of 2016 and approach the court directly. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016. Section 6 of the Act provides a comprehensive procedure for addressing disputes between consumers and gas utility companies, including disputes over billing, metering, or gas consumption. The Act also establishes Gas Utility Courts as the appropriate forum for such matters. Since the petitioner bypassed these statutory procedures and directly approached the court through a constitutional petition, the court found the petition to be non-maintainable. The court further noted that the Government of Pakistan had constituted Utility Courts under the Act, and the petitioner should have pursued his grievances through the appropriate legal channels provided by the Act. -----Citations/Precedents: Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, Section 6 – Provides the legal procedure for resolving disputes between gas consumers and utility companies, including the establishment of Gas Utility Courts.

Summary: Scope of Appeal under Section 13 of the Gas (Theft Control & Recovery) Act, 2016. Section 13(3), providing special procedure for admission of appeal, requires a reasoned order, for admission, in part or in whole of appeal. In absence of any reason or ground for admission, appeal is dismissed in limine.