1. ' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---Briefly stated the facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners are owners of their respective C.N.G Stations and supply C.N.G to various customers. That the respondents are supplying gas to their customers from Southern Source of Natural Gas and Northernn Source of Natural Gas. On 5-8-2010 the petitioners were informed by means of a letter impugned (herein) that henceforth natural gas which was supplied to them would be a mixture of Southern and Northern Source of Natural Gas and initially GCV would be charged in the range of 950-980 B.T.U.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Southern Source of Gas Supply and Northern Source of Gas Supply comes from totally different gas lines and it is not humanly possible to provide the petitioners with a mixture of both. That rates being charged from the petitioners could not be changed without prior approval of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority. That the impugned letter dated 5-8-2010 has been issued in a mala fide exercise of power. In any case rates cannot be increased with retrospective effect as this would militate against all known norms of natural justice.
3. ' The learned counsel for the respondents has taken an objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition and submitted that the petition has been filed without availing of an alternate remedy. Assuming but not conceding, excessive rates are being charged from the petitioners they have a right of filing a complaint in terms of section 11 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. In any case a contract has been signed between the petitioners and the respondents wherein it is stated in clear and unequivocal terms that in case any dispute arises between the parties the matter shall be referred to the authority for resolution. Since the petitioners have not availed of alternate remedies, this petition being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed. While the case was being argued the learned counsel for the respondents has given an undertaking that increase in tariff would not be applicable to the petitioners with retrospective effect. The respondents in their report and para wise comments have appended a copy of the contract entered into between the petitioners and the company. Clause 20 of the said contract is reproduced below:-- DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
4. ' In the event of any difference or dispute arising out of or in connection with the Contrant between the Company and the consumer which cannot be amicably resolved, it shall be referred to the Authority for resolution.
5. ' A plain reading of clause 20 of the agreement would show that in case any difference or dispute arises between the Company and the Consumer the matter shall be referred to the authority for its resolution, this has admittedly not been done.
6. ' The petitioners have also not availed of a remedy in terms of section 11 of the Oil and Gas Regulator Authority Ordinance 2002 which reads as under:-- 11.Complaints.---(1). Any interested person may file a written complaint with the Authority against a licensee for contravention, of any provision of this Ordinance or of any rule or regulation. The learned counsel for the petitioners while the case was being argued stated in clear and unequivocal terms that the respondents are licensee for the purpose of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, as such it can safely be assumed that the petitioners had the remedy for filing a complaint in terms of section 11 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. A written complaint could have been filed by the petitioners against the respondents for having contravened any provision of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority 2002 or of any rule or regulation. An assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he has challenged a letter dated 5- 8-2010 issued by respondent No,3 and this petition has no nexus with any dispute regarding higher rates which are being charged has no force. The petitioners have two different remedies available one in terms of Clause 20 of the Contract signed between the petitioners and the respondents and another under section 11 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. It is trite that a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 would not be maintainable if the same has been filed without availing of an alternate remedy. Jurisdiction conferred under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is not an additional remedy provided by law. This court while hearing a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 would have jurisdiction to interfere only if the petitioner had no other adequate remedy available as has been held in Haji Khan Wali and another v. Director General CD and MD Peshawar and 3 others 2005 YLR 3102.
7. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition being not maintainable is dismissed.