' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Petitioner's grievance is that the bill issued to the petitioner by the respondent by applying new slab formula is not warranted under law.
2. The respondents have filed the para wise comments wherein it has been stated that prior to approval of slab formula which is applied in the bill w.e.f, 1-1-2010 public notices were issued in all the leading national newspapers whereafter, public hearings were held in all the major cities of the country. A large number of objections were received which were duly considered and dealt with.
Thereafter, the current formula of the bill was given which is available at page 42 of the reply vide notification dated 8-1-2010. The learned counsel has stated that Serial No,1 deals with the domestic sector and the slabs are as follows:-- {{TABLE}} a Upto 2003 M3 per month Rs./MMBTU i 0-50 M3 per month 95.01 ii Over 50-upto 100 M3 per month99.48 iii Over 100-upto 200 M3 per month181.10 b Over 200 M3-upto 300 M3 per month i 0-100 M3 per month 99.48 ii Over 100-upto 200 M3 per month181.10 iii Over 200-upto 300 M3 per month383.42
3. Further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that as the petitioner has failed to respond to the said public notices and had raised no objection at that stage, therefore, the petitioner is estoped from raising any objection at this stage. The contention of the respondent is also that the petitioner has no locus standi as the consumer is Sh. Abdul Amin and the gas connection is not in the name of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also pointed out to Annex- B at pages 8 and 9 of the writ petition being the bills of Sh. A. Hameed and has drawn the attention of the Court that the bills are strictly in accordance with slab formula which has been made effective w.e.f, 1-1-2010. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that no bill has been issued with retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to controvert this statement and to show any bill issued to him with the revised tariff prior to January, 2010.
4. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has no locus standi and is estoped by his own conduct. As such this writ petition has no force and is dismissed.