SALAHUDDIN PANHW AR, J.---Precisely relevant facts are that plaintif f is doing business of storage, filling and marketing of liquid petroleum gas under license, issued by defendant No.1; it is pleaded that plaintif f has state of the art plant of storage and filling at Adda Mehmood Kot; plaintif f is adhering all safety measures and precautions and if for any reason including but not limited to force majeur anything happens by any person other than plaintif f while transporting LPG, the plaintif f canno t be saddled with the responsibility of negligence of any such person or company who fails to adhere or violates any safety measures or precautions of OGRA Rules; that plaintif f during the course of its business as usual impo rted consignment of LPG from UAE, which was received and stored by SSGC in their storage tanks at Port Qasim Terminal, plaintif f requested SSGC authority that they want to take their LPG at the filling station of Iqra Gas (Pvt.) Ltd. which is permissible in terms of the hospitality agreement; that due to subject unfortunate accident, resulting loss of lives, the plaintif f, as a God fearing person as well as law abiding citizen, visited Moza Mananwala District Nankana in order to console the grieved family; met with the families of deceased persons as well as injured persons and gave from their own pocket Rs.20 lacs; the above distribution of the compensation by plaintif f was duly witnessed by the persons of the relevant area and in this regard proper affidavit was duly prepared in presence of Malik Zulqarnain Dogar , MPA Nankana Sahib, on 17.02.2016 attested on 04.04.2016 and signed by witnesses.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well learned Additional Attorney General, perused the record.
3. At the outset learned counsel for plaintif f contends that by direction of defendan t No.1, plaintif f was required to pay certain amount as compensation, as described above , to the families of deceased and to injured persons, and because of non-compliance during pendency of their suit they cancelled their license; he further contends that there was no fault on part of the plaintif f and even otherwise it was an incident; that as per FIR incident was caused due to mistake of the car driver who was on high speed thereby gas was leaked resulted into said accident; no opportunity of hearing was provided to plaintif f before passing order by defendant No.1, order passed by defendant No.1 is against the settled principles of law and natural justice.
4. In contra, learned counsel for defendant No.1 contends that impugned order is on two folds, one is that plaintif f was required to pay compensation amount through Deputy Commissioner , Sheikhupura and second that of precautionary measures, impugned order is conditional, if plaintif f is ready to comply with, defendant No.1 will restore their license within eight days.
At this juncture learned counsel submits photographs and also news clipping as under:-- "MUZAFF ARGARH: Death toll in the oil tank truck blast reached nine on Sunday .
The Pak Arab Refinery Company (Parco ) truck had caught fire and blasted at Qasba Gujrat on Saturday , some 35km away from the city. The blast had killed one passerby at the spot and burnt 20 others. The injured were taken to the district headquarters (DHQ) hospital first and then to the burn unit of the Nishtar Hospital Multan where four people died late on Saturday night and as many on Sunday .
The dead have been identified as Shah Ali, Sajjad Pathan, Ibrahim, Muhammad Muddasir , Kaleem, Fiaz, Haji Muhammad, Mahboob Sukhera, Imran and seven injured include Muhammad Javed, Basit, Khalil and Dadoo Marwat who are still in hospital.
Rescue 1122 and Parco fire brigade reached the accident spot after bodies had been burnt and rescue officials shifted the injured to the Nishtar Hospital but there was loadshedding in the burn unit last night.
When the bodies reached the native places of the victims the families raised slogans against the Parco administration, alleging it of negligence.
The district administration said that it had requested the Punjab Government to announce compensation for the victim's families.
However , the families have reportedly rejected the proposal, calling it meager .
There is not enough parking space for oil tank trucks along the Parco site and on Sunday dozens of people protested against Parco administration over it.
It is learnt that thousands of oil tank trucks pass through the Muzaf fargarh where many oil depots were situated."
5. The order , being the root of the instant suit, would reflect that after providing hearing on show cause notice, defendant No.1 passed order dated 24.02.2016 which is reproduced as under:-- "In view of the above, it is established that licensee i.e. Hazara Efficient Gas is responsible for this accident therefore, under Rule 27 of LPG (Production and Distribution) Rules, 2001 Hazara Efficient Gas is directed to pay compensation to the deceased persons amounting to Rs.250,000/- each and Rs.100,000/- to each injured . The total amount will be communicated to each injured. The total amount will be communicated to Hazara Efficient Gas after getting/ receiving the particulars of the affectees from Punjab Governm ent / DCO Sheikhupura. The compensation recovered from licensee will be forwarded to the Punjab Governmen t / DCO Sheikhupura for onward distribution among the af fectees."
Plaintif f filed review application that was decided on 30.04.2016 which is available at page 141, relevant paragraph No.10 is reproduced:- "In view of above, the authority hereby rejects the instant review petition as it is not maintainable under section 13 of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 due to non conclusive evidence and directs the petitioner to implement the authority's decision dated 24.02.2016 within 15 days of receipt of the decision, positively . In case of failure thereof, the licence shall stand revoked under rule 10(1)(a) of LPG Rules, 2001 ."
The perusal of the above orders shall leave nothing ambiguous that authority first found the plaintif f responsible 16r accident and then ordered it to pay the compensation and revocation of license was subject to failure of plaintif f to pay the compensation. I shall add here that an act of help should be respected but it shall not absolve one from his liabilities to pay compensation. The terms 'compensation' and 'help' are not synonym to each other . Former is a legal obligation / duty failure whereof shall bring its consequences while the later, being a pure act of kindness, if done should be respected and regarded but failure thereof shall bring no earthly consequences. In short, the help, if any, done by plaintif f to grieved family(ies) shall not be an excuse towards compliance of an ordered 'compensation '.
6. Before responding to the consent of the plaintif f towards proposal of retoration of license of the plaintif f on payment of compensation, I shall add with concern that Laws, Rules and policies are always framed but normally the authorities take no serious steps towards enforcement / implementation thereof which otherwise are always meant to 'secure ' the individuals by sketching a line of 'rights and obligations' . No doubt, everyone has a right to enjoy freedom of doing lawful business and trade but at the same is obliged to follow the law, regulating/governing such right. A negligence or violation of obligation/ duty shall expose him / her to legal action but this shall never be achieved unless authorities are always on their toes to lease ensure a sense of fear in public that "no single negligence / violation shall go unchecked".The position, being so, shall make clear from the direction, issued by the defendant No.1, after the said unfortunate incident, costing number of lives, which reads as under: "Subject: LPG Bowzer filling / decanting and transportation Reference is made to the subject .
2. The oil and gas regulatory authority (OGRA) has noticed that standard operating procedure (SOPs) / good safety practices for filling of LPG bowzers at local LPG producers /LPG terminals and decanting of LPG bowzers at plants of marketing companies are not being followed in letter and spirit, thus endangering the public safety .
3. It may also be noted that safety violations by companies will not be tolerated by the authority , therefore, all licenses are directed to comply to the safety requirements and adhere to the following conditions which will be checked by the special teams of OGRA and the violators will face serious legal implications: a) No bowzer be filled at LPG termination / local LPG producers without proper inspections/documentations, safety checks and fulfillment of procedures, b) All local LPG producers / LPG terminals may check LPG bowzer's explosives license, third party inspection certificate, motor vehicle examiner certificate, manufacturing bowzer name plate etc. prior to filling bowzers, c) All LPG marketing companies / local LPG Producers LPG terminals must ensure to install tracking system in their owned / hired LPG bowzers for keeping check on the route / movement of LPG bowzers, d) Training sessions of LPG bowzer drivers/staf f regarding safety and handling of emergencies must be arranged by LPG marketing companies / LPG terminals/ LPG producers / LPG associations of Pakistan and keep record of the same on plants which will be checked / asked by the authority as and when required. e) Comprehensive data of LPG bowzers filled at LPG terminals / local LPG produ cers must be maintained by the concerned and same will also be checked / asked by the authority as and when required."
I shall not hesitate in adding here that authorities need not inform the licensee(s) time and again for complying with safety measures but should ensure an action particularly when such negligence is likely to 'endanger the public safety' . The 'public safety' cannot be left at sole discretion of the licensee but the authority is also equally responsible to ensure a proper mechanism of checking. The authorities should not wait to its responsibilities in checking the safety precautions at relevant places only after an alarming unfortunate incident nor the duties of an authority comes to an end by writing / issuing such letter but it starts the moment it gives a license and continues till continuity thereof which (continuity) is always subject to adhering / complying with all laws, rules and policies.
7. In said background, the learned Additional Attorney General was put on notice for assistance as well query whether any commission was formed by the Federation with regard to incident or a high level committee to conduct a thorough probe in order to fix responsib ilities and to avoid any such incident in future. Albeit, defendant No.1 is required to take precautionary measures, learned Additional Attorney General contends that he is not aware if any commission was formed. He contended that civil Court has no territorial jurisdiction to issue any direction in the matter however could not resist that in matters, involving interest of general public or fundamental rights, the Court(s) can show its concern particularly when mishap, in question, resulted in loss of many lives and injuring.
Further , when it comes to the lives or safety of general public, the Courts, being the ultimate guardians of rights of individuals can ask the authorities to do what the mandate of law demands them (authorities) to do. Though directions have been issued by defendan t No.1 to relevant forums but when the defendant No.1 himself admitted it to be related to 'public safety' then such direction(s) shall not serve its purpose and object if they are not framed/designed as per international standard by taking all concerned/related on board which should include a least practicable time for its enforcement in letter and spirit. Accordingly , it would be in the interest of justice that Federation along with all relevant institutions including defendants, while takin g the Provincial Governments onboard, constitute a high level Committee consisting of the following authorities as its members, to examine the existing law as well practice whether it matches to international standards of safety and security particularly while transporting explosive/ dangerous material.
(1) Hydrocarbon Department Institute of Pakistan, Of fice at Plot No.18, Street No.6, H-9/1, Islamabad.
(2) Chief Inspector of Explosives, Ministry of Industries, Head office Islamabad Department of Explosives, 269, Block F , Mughal Plaza, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi.
(3) Directorate General Gas, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad.
(4) I.G(s) of all Provinces.
(5) Motor V ehicle and Fitness Department, All Provinces.
(6) Deputy Secretary , Ministry of Petroleum.
8. It is expected that the Federal Government will form such commission/committee within fifteen days. It is further expected that such forum will decide the issue preferably within two months with compliance report to this Court.
9. As regard the merits of the instant suit, it would suffice to say that since the plaintif f has consented to proposal of restoration of its license by defendant No.1 on payment of the compensation amount, as was ordered by authority , the purpose of the suit stands served and same is dismissed as such, however , with direction that defendant No.1 shall restore license of plaintif f on payment/deposit of compensation because revocation of license was result of such failure alone, within eight days after compliance.
Needless to mention that steps emanating from the FIR would not be prejudiced by instant order of this Court in any manner . Let a facsimile copy of this order be sent to learned Additional Attorney General as well learned counsel for defendants, for compliance.