' AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the restoration of the domestic gas connection installed at her premises.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a registered consumer of the respondent gas company bearing Consumer No,90635916415, Meter No,MG27030734 is installed at her premises for domestic gas consumption. On 25-5-2012 the said meter was disconnected and the petitioner was deprived of the gas connection at her premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the premises of the petitioner is divided into two portions i.e lower and upper portion. Two separate meters have been installed for domestic gas connection in the said two portions. The dispute of the petitioner pertains to Meter No,MG27030734, which is installed in the lower portion.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the report and parawise comments and also placed on record certain documents to justify the disconnection. It is his case that the respondents have acted in accordance with law. Both metres installed at the premises of the petitioner were for' domestic consumption. However, they were being used for commercial purposes. Hence the respondents were justified in disconnecting the gas supply. In this regard, they have placed reliance on the report of the inspection teams, which report shows that the petitioner's consumption was not domestic but in fact being used for commercial purposes as it was being used by a restaurant.
4. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent gas company is that the petitioner is the consumer of the respondent gas company bearing Consumer No,90635916415 and accordingly Meter No,MG27030734 is installed in the lower portion of the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner occupies the lower portion and she has rented out the upper portion where the business of a restaurant is being conducted. Admittedly, the premises of the petitioner has two gas connections. The aforementioned connection is in the lower portion and there is another connection which is for the upper portion of the premises of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a default with respect to the billing of the meter installed in the upper portion. However, in order to induce payment, the respondents have disconnected the gas supply of the petitioner's premises being the lower portion of the petitioner's house.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
6. The basic dispute is in relation to the gas connection for the lower portion of the house i,e, for Meter No,MG27030734 vide Consumer No,90635916415. The petitioner has placed reliance on bills for the months of March and May, 2012 to show that she is not a defaulter and there was no occasion to disconnect the gas supply. The respondents have placed reliance on the report of Senior Distribution Engineer (UFG-C) which provides that on 25-5-2012 the meter of the petitioner was disconnected as it was being used for commercial purposes and not for domestic purposes. In this regard, the report provides that one small tandoor and three star burners were being used by the petitioner against the said meter. It has been argued that the said equipment was being used in the upper portion. When the meter was disconnected from the upper portion on 10-5-2012, the star burners were being used by the lower portion. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes this allegation and states that no such burner or tandoor was being used and that in fact this is only being alleged to ensure payment against the bill issued for the upper portion.
7. The, dispute of the petitioner requires a factual inquiry as to whether the petitioner was using the domestic gas connection for commercial purposes. It is settled law that in Constitutional jurisdiction detailed inquiry cannot be undertaken. Reliance is placed on a case titled "Anjuman Fruit Arhtian and others v. Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and others" (2011 SCM R 279) wherein it was held that:- "This extraordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily, for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts. Controverted questions of fact, adjudication on which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of parties can be determined only by courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matter and on such ground constitutional petition was incompetent."
' In this regard, it is also noted that an efficacious remedy is available under the Complaint Resolution Procedure, 2003 (2003 Regulations) issued by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority. The 2003 Regulations provide for a complaint resolution system. Any person may submit an application for any act or thing done or omitted to be done by a licensee or dealer. The Regulations also provide for the redressed of the following under the Regulations:--
(b) Non-compliance by the licensee or dealer with the service standards in the areas including but not limited to;
(i) Billing and overcharging;
(ii) Connection and disconnection of service;
(iii) Metering;
(iv) Undue delay in providing service;
(v) Safety practices; or (vi Quantity and quality of natural gas, LPG or CNG being supplied; or ' The petitioner's dispute should be redressed by this complaint cell as it involves a factual inquiry, possibly even evidence to determine whether or not there has been any non compliance in the service standards in the areas specified in Regulation 3(b). Furthermore, Regulation 9 provides for an appeal against the order, if the complainant is not satisfied with the decision under 2003 Regulations. Therefore, the 2003 Regulations provide for an adequate remedy to the petitioner in relation to her B dispute of wrongful disconnection of service in the supply of gas. The remedy of a statutory appeal is adequate and effective and as such there is no basis to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be granted without a factual inquiry on the issue of whether the petitioner was using the domestic connection for commercial purposes and also because an efficacious and adequate remedy is available to the petitioner, which she may avail if she so desires.
8(sic) In view of the aforementioned, this petition having no merit is dismissed.