Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner , M/s Paracha Molding W orks, impugns:-
(i) Order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Designated Officer of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority ("OGRA") , whereby the petitioner 's complaint No.5384/2012 against Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited ("SNGPL") was decided by holding that SNGPL was justified in claiming consumer gas pilferage charges against the petitioner 's meter No.8581742 for the period of 188 days that it remained installed at the petitioner 's premises based on the connected load of 7.52 Mcf/hr for 24 hours operation;
(ii) Order dated 23.05.2014, whereby the appeals filed by SNGPL as well as the petitioner against the said order dated 07.05.2013, were dismissed by the Appellate Authority; and
(iii) Order dated 15.10.2021, whereby the petitioner 's review petition against the said appellate order dated 23.05.2014, was dismissed.
2. The record shows that meter No.8581742 was installed at the petitioner 's premises on 05.08.201 1 and removed by the raiding team of SNGPL on 08.02.2 012. The period for which the said meter stood installed at the petitioner 's premises was 188 days. Since the said meter had been found by SNGPL to have been tempered with, a demand of Rs.34,083,443/- was raised against the petitioner as gas pilferage charges. The said demand was based on 365 days purportedly covering the installation period of the gas meter at the petitioner 's premises.
3. Against the disconnection of the petitioner 's gas meter , the petitioner filed writ petition No.14224/2012 before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2012. Although the said order is not on the record, but it appears that a decision on the petitioner 's complaint was made by OGRA pursuant to the said order passed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court.
4. Now, initially another meter bearing No.8580952 was installed at the petitioner 's premises. Apparently , this meter was stolen, and in this regard, the petitioner had reported the matter to the Police as well as SNGPL on 03.08.201 1. Since the period for which gas pilferage charges of Rs.34,083,443/- had been imposed by SNGPL on the petitioner also included the period during which meter No. 8580952 was installed at the petitioner 's premises, the Designated Officer, reduced the period for which gas pilferage charges could be imposed on the petitioner from 365 days to 188 days. This was done through order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Designated Of ficer.
5. Aggrieved by the said order , both SNGPL and the petitioner preferred appeals before OGRA which were dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2014. SNGPL did not challenge this order any further but the petitioner preferred a review petition under Section 13 of the OGRA Ordinance against the said order . Vide impugned order dated 15.10.2021, the said review petition was dismissed by OGRA.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner , after narrating the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, submitted that OGRA had violated its own procedure for dealing with gas theft cases by not sending meter No.8581742 to the nearest testing workshop / laboratory within two working days of the disconnecti on of the meter; that the meter inspection report of the Central Meter Shop at Lahore shows that the date on which the meter was received by the Central Meter Shop was 21.02.2012, whereas the raid was conducted by SNGPL on the petitioner 's premises on 08.02.2012; that this shows that the meter disconnected by SNGPL was sent to the Central Meter Shop with a delay of 14 days; that this irregularity is sufficient to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.05.2014 passed by the OGRA; that neither SNGPL nor OGRA took into account the gas load shedding that had taken place during the period of 188 days during which meter No.8581742 stood installed at the petitioner 's premises; and that the gas pilferage charges on the basis of 24 hours of operation for the entire 188 days was unjust and irrational. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
7. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his able assistance.
8. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition have been set out in sufficient detail in paragraphs 2 to 5 above, and need not be recapitulated.
9. The review petition filed by the petitioner against OGRA 's appellate order dated 23.05.2014 is annexed at page 45 of this petition. In the said review petition, the petitioner did not take a ground as to gas load shedding or outages during the 188 days for which gas pilferage charges had been found by the Designated Officer to have been correctly imposed on the petitioner . The petitioner also did not take the ground as to the delay in sending the petitioner 's gas meter No.8581742 with the delay of 14 days to the Central Meter Shop.
10. This Court cannot permit a petitioner to take a factual ground which had not been taken by it in the grounds of the review petition.
11. A review petition under Section 13 of the OGRA Ordinance would be competent on the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due efforts and diligence, was not in the knowledge of the party seeking review at the time of the hearing of the case. The petitioner 's review petition does not refer to any circumstance or fact which came to surface subsequently and which could not have been discovered with due diligence at the time of the passing of the order-in-original or the appellate order .
12. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.