ARSHAD MAHMOOD TABASSUM, J.-The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant constitutional petition is as under:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that instant writ petition may kindly be accepted and act of removing the gas meter and disconnection of gas supply may kindly be declared to be illegal and without any lawful authority and respondents may kindly be directed to supply the gas by fixing the gas meter."
2. It appears that the petitioner, who is running Al-Karam CNG Station, Chakwal Road, Choa Saidan Shah, District Chakwal, is aggrieved of the excessive billing on the part of the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Company/respondent No,1 and in order to seek redressal of his grievance, he has also filed some civil suits in the Civil Court, and has now approached this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to seek a declaration that the removal of his gas meter and disconnection of gas supply is without any lawful authority.
3. This petition has been contested by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner is a defaulter of huge amount to the tune of Rs,2,53,37,470, due to which gas supply to his CNG station was disconnected and that in view of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Ordinance, 2014 (the Ordinance), this Court lacks jurisdiction in the matter, hence, the instant constitutional petition is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the case titled "Khalid Mehmood v.
Collector of Customs" (1999 SCMR 1881), has argued that despite availability of alternate remedy, the instant constitutional petition is maintainable, because the act of the respondents regarding disconnection of gas supply of his CNG station is patently illegal and no remedy is available to him for restoration of his gas connection under the newly promulgated Ordinance.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and myself gone through the documents annexed with this petition.
6. The purpose of promulgation of the Ordinance, as described in the preamble of the same reads as under:- "Whereas it is expedient to prosecute cases of gas theft and other offenses relating to gas and to provide for a procedure for expeditious recovery of amounts due, value of gas, fines, penalties and other outstanding amounts payable and sums due to Gas Utility Companies and for matters ancillary and related thereto;"
In order to carry out the purpose of the said Ordinance, Gas Utility Courts, as defined in clause (j) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Ordinance, have been established. Jurisdiction of the said courts has been described in section 4 of the Ordinance, which reads as under:- "4. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Gas Utility Court --
(1) A Gas Utility Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters covered by this Ordinance.
(2) A Gas Utility Court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of a case in which the claim, fine, penalty, sum due or matter in dispute does not exceed five million rupees or for the trial of offences under this Ordinance and, in all other cases, the High Court.
(3) The Court having jurisdiction under this Ordinance shall be a Gas Utility Court having jurisdiction in the place in which the Gas Utility Company, consumer, gas producer or offender, as the case may be, is situated."
The jurisdiction of all other courts and authorities has been barred by the A provisions of subsection (5) of section 5 of the Ordinance, which provides as under:- "(5) Subject to subsection (6), no court or authority, shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the jurisdiction of a Gas Utility Court extends under this Ordinance.
(6) Nothing in subsection (5) shall be deemed to affect;
(a) the right of a Gas Utility Company to seek any remedy before any other court, tribunal or forum including official liquidator or, receiver that may otherwise be available to it under the law; or
(b) the powers, of the Gas Utility. Company or jurisdiction of any Gas Utility Court as is referred to in clause (a) to require, the transfer to a Gas Utility Court of any proceedings pending before any such court immediately before the coming into force of this Ordinance."
7. The right of appeal against the judgments, decrees, sentences or final orders, passed by the Gas Utility Courts has been provided in section 13 of the Ordinance, according to which the judgments, decrees, sentences or final orders passed by a Gas Utility Court are appealable before the High Court. Thus, in view of the provisions of the Ordinance, no court other than a Gas Utility Court can take cognizance of the matters enumerated in section 4 of the Ordinance. In this view of the matter, the instant petition appears to be not maintainable, because the grievance of the petitioner is covered under Section 4 of the Ordinance.
8. As regards the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e, 1999 SCM R 1881, I have considered the same. For the sake of convenience, a portion thereof is reproduced below as ready reference:- "There are other matters, however, where the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be so readily resorted to. One such, falling in this category, would be matters amenable to the jurisdiction of an exclusive Tribunal, mandated by the Constitution itself. Another, which readily comes to the mind, would be disputes under a statute, postulating the appellate or revisional jurisdiction to reside either in the High Court itself or directly in the Supreme Court. An example, essentially relevant to the first, would be the Service Tribunal where the Tribunal is mandated by the Constitution of Pakistan namely, Article 212, thereof and where an appeal lies directly from the Tribunal's decision to the Supreme Court. Obviously, the High Court should be very slow in entertaining disputes covered by the jurisdiction of such a Tribunal even in matters where the High Court's jurisdiction cannot be taken away e.g. Acts which are void, without jurisdiction or coram non judice. In such cases of ouster, the High Court would consider it a better exercise of its discretion not to interfere. More or less a similar principle applies where an exclusive Tribunal or a regular Court has jurisdiction in a matter but the legislation, creating such Court or forum or conferring jurisdiction on the same, also ends up by providing appellate or revisional jurisdiction to the High Court itself. Obvious examples could be civil and criminal proceedings, emanating under the Code of Civil and Criminal Procedure, Income Tax References, Customs Appeals etc. In such- matters, where the High Court itself is the repository of the ultimate appellate,revisionalorremredbthe relevant statute, it is in the rarest of cases that the High Court may be persuaded to entertain a Constitutional petition and to enforce the Constitutional remedy in preference to its own appellate, revisional or referral dispensation arising in course of time. "
(underiining is mine to add emphasis)
As pointed out above, an appeal against the decision of a Gas Utility Court lies to the High Court, hence, even on the basis of the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the dictum of the Apex Court as reproduced above, this petition appears to be not maintainable. This petition, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed.