SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---- This writ petition calls into question order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the designated officer of Oil and Gas Regularity Authority (OGRA ) as well as order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the full bench of OGRA .
2. The petitioner is a consumer of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL ) having obtained industrial gas connection in the year 2006. The gas meter installed at the premises of the petitioner was replaced on 20.11.2012 by SNGPL , which meter upon examination was found with configuration defect. Consequent ly, the petitioner was served with a notice on 13.12.2012 by SNGPL with demand for payment of Rs,81,651,280/- on account of "wrong meter configuration" for the period 06.12.2010 to 20.11.2012. The demand raised against the petitioner was assailed through Writ Petition No,31459 of 2012 which was disposed of on 20.12.2012 by directing GRA. to pass a decision on the petitioner's complaint filed before it in terms of Complaint Resolution Procedure Regulations, 2003.
The complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed through order dated 24.04.2013. An appeal under section 12 of OGRA Ordinance, 2002 was preferred by the petitioner , which appeal was also dismissed on 25.06.2014, hence this writ petition.
3. For the sake of completing the facts of the case it may be stated that this writ petition was earlier decided in favour of the petitioner on 07.04.2016. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however , on appeal bearing CPLA No. 2177-L of 2016 filed by SNGPL remanded the matter for decision afresh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of clause 14 of the contract initially executed between the parties (the Contract) read with Rule 20 (xiv) of the Natural Gas Regulatory Authority (Licensing) Rules, 2002, SNGPL was under an obligation to measure volumetrically , using correct meter , the gas consumed by the petitioner in terms of BTU, which obligation SNGPL did not fulfill as it had installed a faulty gas meter at the premises of the petitioner . By pressing into service clause 14 of the Contract, it was contended, that SNGPL could at best charge the petitioner for a period not exceeding fifteen days from the date when the fault came to the knowledge of the SNGPL . It was submitted that OGRA failed to exercise its jurisdiction under section 11 of the Oil and Gas Regularity Authority Act, 2002 in regard to the breach committed by SNGPL under the aforementioned rules. It was furthermore the case of the petitioner that OGRA wrongly pressed into service clause 15 of the Contract by upholding the demand raised against the petitioner by SNGPL . It was vehemently argued that SNGPL cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own negligence for not installing a corre ct meter at the premises of the petitioner . It was also submitted that after 2006 a new gas policy was introduced by SNGPL in pursuance whereof new contracts were provided to the consumers. By virtue of clause 11(ii) of the new contract, SNGPL could only charge the petitioner for twelve months on account of the defective gas meter .
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, controverted the stance taken by the petitioner and supported the orders impugned in this writ petition.
6. Arguments heard, record perused.
7. Section 11 of the OGRA Ordinance grants a right to an intereste d person to file a complaint with the OGRA against a licensee for contravention of any provisions of OGRA Ordinance or of any rules and regulation s made thereunder .
8. The Complaint Resolution Procedure Regulations, 2003 were framed under section 42 of the OGRA Ordinance, 2002. Regulation 3(b)(i) deals with a complaint filed in respect of billing and overcharging whereas sub-clause (iii) deals with metering.
9. The scope of the decision to be passed by OGRA on the complaints filed by the consume rs by the terms of Regulation 3 is fairly restricted to the technical issues relating, inter alia, to the gas meter , billing and overcharging.
The designated. officer of the OGRA in order dated 24.04.2013 laid down a chart comparing the gas consumed by the petitioner for the years 2007 to 2013. The data mentioned in the chart clearly shows a drastic reduction (ten times) of gas usage by the petitioner in the relevant years i,e, 2011-2012 whereas the data for gas usage immediately preceding and after the relev ant period reflected consistent figures. This led to the designated officer to hold as follows: The Complainants gas consumption from December 2010 to November 2012 indicated decreased behavior to the extent of ten times less billing issued to him. The prominent downward dip in gas consumption has been identified during disputed period while compared with the consumption of throughout the preceding and available succeeding period/ months. It is observed that gas consumption during disputed period remained on very lower side v. overall consumption which revealed confirmed under billing issued to the Complaint during through out the disputed period.
It may pertinently be pointed out that there is no dispute with regard to the data relating to gas usage by the petitioner as reflected in the order of the designated of ficer of OGRA.
10. In arriving at the finding that the petitioner was liable to pay the amount mentioned in the notice dated 13.12.2012, the impugned orders relied on clause 15(ii) of the Contract which states that "Provided, however , if the Company finds any mistakes in the bills sent to the Consumer , then irrespective of the fact whether payment has been made or not, the Company shall upon having discovered the mistake at any time be entitled to send a correct bill and the Consumer shall be liable to pay the same."
11. In order to get around the aforementioned clause of the Contract granting power to SNGPL to receive the amount in question from the petitioner , the learned counsel relied on clause 14 of the Contract read with rule 12(xiv) of the Natural Gas Regulatory Authority (Licensing) Rules, 2002. This rule states that a licensee shall be required to measure volumetrically using correct meters and invoice consumers their consumption of natural gas in terms of BTU. In the opinion of this Court, the reliance by the petitioner on Rule 12 (xiv) is not apt. The obligation on the part of SNGPL to use correct meter and any dispute in regard thereto is a matter between OGRA and SNGPL . By relying on the aforementioned rule, the petitioner cannot avoid the liability of making payment in respect to the gas actually consumed by it during the period in dispute. Similarly , clause 14 of the Contract has many parts which deal with a variety of situations and it is further apparent that each part is independent of each other . The various parts of clause 14 can be segregated as follows:
(i) The register of the meter maintained by the Company shall be prima facie evidence of the quantity of gas consumed.
(ii) If the accuracy of the meter be disputed and the meter be officially tested and found to register erroneously , the meter shall, if the period of inaccuracy is not known or ascertainable be deemed to have registered erroneously to the degree so found for the last half of the period since the date of previous meter test, provided that the period of adjustment shall not exceed 15 days;
(iii) This clause shall not be applicable in case where the Consumer is found by the Company to have been responsible directly or indirectly tampering with the Gas meter in any way whatsoever;
(iv) In case the meter shall for any cause whatsoever , cease or omit to register regularly the quantity of gas used, the Consumer shall pay to the Company for Gas supplied to him during the period the meter shall so remain out of order on the basis of average monthly consumption of gas by the Consumer during the two months immediately preceding or following the months in which the meter so remained out of order , whichever is more.
The petitioner's counsel mainly relied on part (ii) above for contending that the bill for gas consumed for the period in dispute could not be charged by SNGPL . The contention of the petitioner , on a bare reading of clause 14, does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny . It is evident that this portion of clause 14 has no applicability to the case of the petitioner in as much as the gas meter within the contemplation of this portion of the clause must have been tested previously . Be that as it may, the last portion of clause 14 of the Contract (iv) above, which is general in nature, is fully attracted to the case of the petitioner .
12. It was vehemently emphasized during the course of arguments that the negligence of SNGPL in installing a faulty mere cannot be visited on the petitioner . This submission has no merit. There is no dispute on merits that SNGPL had applied average monthly consumptio n of gas used by the petitioner in arriving at the liability mentioned in the impugned notice. This fact was clearly brought forth by the order of the designated officer of OGRA in which comparison of data of gas usage by the petitioner in the year preceding and after the period in dispute was made. It bears repetition that this comparison of data clearly establishes and validates the claim of SNGPL that the gas meter was not correctly recording the gas consumed by the petitioner for the period in dispute. By virtue of clause 14 of the Contract, the average monthly consumption of gas was calculated and notice in question was sent to the petitioner .
13. The submissions that the terms of the new contract shall be deemed to govern the relationship of parties, which contract was introduced under Gas Polic y introduced in the year 2006 and that under the provisions of the said contract SNGPL could at best charge the petitioner the average gas bill for a period not exceeding one year have no merit. This argument found favour with this Court's earlier decision rendered on 07.04.2016, which was ultimately set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment in Civil Petition No,2177-L of 2016 by holding as follows: The pivotal questions in the case in hand are whether the resolution of the disput e between the parties would be governed by the old or new agreement and whether any of the clauses of the latter could be invoked by the High Court while dealing with such resolution notwithstanding it has not been signed and subscribed to by either of the parties. The operative part of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not bother to see as to what would regulate the resolution of the dispute so raised by the respondent.
This aspect of the case need not detain us as admittedly the new contract was never executed between the parties. Accordingly no reliance can be placed on the draft contract sent to the petitioner by SNGPL . Learned counsel for the petitioner on his part also did not seriously argue this aspect of the matter and instead concentrated entirely on clause 14 of the Contract.
14. In passing it may also be stated that the petitioner did not challenged the notice or the decisions passed by OGRA (impugned herein) before the civil court. This Court in the exercise of its constit utional jurisdiction is only concerned with the process review of decision making. Some of the fundamental principles of writ of certiorari are that the control exercise by this Court over judicial and administrative tribunals is not appellate but supervisory in nature. The scope of this writ is only concerned with the jurisdiction exercised by the inferior tribunals and the qualifications and conditions of its exercise. This jurisdiction can also be invoked when a tribunal though not lacking in jurisdiction nevertheless fails to observe the rules of procedure or principles of natural justice in its decision making. An error in the decision may also be amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction if it is based on clear ignorance of law or where an express provision of law is disregarded. In the case of Nagendra Nath Bora and another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others (1958) SCR 1240 the parameters for the exercise of writ jurisdiction were set out as under: The Common law writ, now called the order of certiorari, which has also been adopted by our Constitution, is not meant to take the place of an appeal where the Statute does not confer a right of appeal. Its purpose is only to determine, on an examination of the record, whether the inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded in accordance with the essent ial requirements of the law which it was meant to administer . Mere formal or technical errors, even though of law , will not be suf ficient to attract this extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
15. In the present case, there is no allegation that the forums below in passing the orders impugned in this petition committed any irregularity in exercise of powers or acted in excess of jurisdiction or did not exercise jurisdiction vested in them under the OGRA Ordinance and the regulations made thereunder . As noted above, the powers of the designated officer of the OGRA while adjudicating upon complaints filed by the consumers under Regulation 3 is restricted to the technical aspects. The designated officer of OGRA by the terms of the scope of his authority could not have entered upon any exercise for interpretation of various clauses of the Contract or complex legal issues. The decision of the designated officer of OGRA has been reviewed in appeal by the full Board, which has found no error or legal flaw therein. Be that as it may, this Court has come to the conclusion that clauses 14 and 15 of the contract authorized SNGPL to seek recovery of the amounts due from the petitioner on account of gas consumed during the period in dispute, which was admittedly not reflected by the gas meter . This Court in its constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere in the findings of the designated officer of the OGRA and that of the Authority upholding the demand raised by SNGPL from the petitioner .
16. In the result, this writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.