Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner impugns orders dated 17.06.2014 and 11.01.2016, passed by the Designated Officer and the Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority ("OGRA") respectively, whereby its complaint for the refund of money on account of wastage of natural gas was dismissed and the appeal also met the same fate. The order of the Appellate Authority is as under:- "7. Arguments of both the parties were heard. Both the parties reiterated their stance as already put forward before the Authority. After perusing the record and after hearing the parties at length, the Authority observes that the matter as regards the refund of money in respect of wastage is not covered by the contractual obligations/license agreement duly singed between the parties.
The letter No. 1(53)STT/2002, dated 16.01.2003, put forward by the appellant in support is not a binding upon the respondent party. The Authority further observes that the business matters between the parties are governed by the contract mutually agreed upon/signed by the parties.
Furthermore, the letter No.CNo.1(53)/STT/2002/61824-R dated April 14, 2008 referred to by the appellant bears general nature and holds no specific directions to PSO. It has also been observed that the appellant itself has conceded to the fact that vide para-4 of the appeal that the contract with PSO was signed in the year 2002 which did not include wastage clause. The matter as regards "wastage" applies to the collection of GST by the FBR/CBR only.
8. In view of the above, the Authority upholds the decision of the D.O and dismisses appeal accordingly."
2. The case of the petitioner is that a CNG site was leased out to it by the respondent No.2-PSO at its Petrol Pump, located at F-8 Markaz Islamabad and signed a contract relating thereto on 31.10.2001; that according to the contract, the petitioner is to pay 10% of its sale proceeds; that the FBR vide its letter dated 16.01.2003 decided that a maximum wastage at the rate of 13% for CNG pumps with machinery manufactured till 13.12.2000 and maximum wastage @ 11% for CNG Pumps with new machinery imported after 31.12.2000 shall be allowed provided all record prescribed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 are maintained and produced for audit for the department; that the permission to allow CNG operator to deduct the wastage from their sale proceeds while working out Sales Tax payable to FBR was given after it was verified through extensive exercise that such wastage actually takes place; that the respondent No. 2/PSO, being the dominant partner refused to allow the petitioner the benefit of legal facility; that the petitioner in order to get clarification regarding applicability of letter dated 16.01.2003, approached the FBR which was replied in affirmative; that the respondent No.2/PSO vide letter dated 31.05.2010 also agreed to submit the issue of deduction of wastage for arbitration to the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources or OGRA and the petitioner also moved to the OGRA in this regard but the Designated Officer failed to appreciate the correct position on the ground vide order dated 17.06.2014 and directed the parties to comply with the relevant clause of agreement /contract in true letter and spirit; that the petitioner against the decision of the Designated Officer dated 17.06.2014 filed an appeal before the OGRA but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 11.01,2016, hence instant OGRA Petition.
3. The respondents in their separate parawise comments refuted the claim of the petitioner on legal as well as factual grounds. The main objection is upon the maintainability of the instant petition in presence of efficacious and alternate remedy of review under Section 13 of the Oil & Gas Regulatory Ordinance 2002 ("Ordinance 2002").
4. Heard, record perused.
5. Perusal of record reveals that the petitioner after the decision by the Designated Officer and the Appellate Authority filed the instant OGRA petition without availing remedy of review in terms of Section 13 of the Ordinance 2002.
6. This Court in the case of Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Ltd through Deputy Chief Law Officer v. Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority through Chairman and another (2016 CLC 562), laid down that "the legislature, in its wisdom, has worded Section 12(2) of the Ordinance 2002 in similar language as that of Article 199 of the Constitution. The powers under Section 12(2) of the Ordinance 2002, or Article 199 of the Constitution, have been made subject to the satisfaction of the High Court that no other adequate remedy is provided. As for as Section 12(2) of the Ordinance 2002 is concerned, this court is satisfied that Section provides for an adequate remedy to the petitioner company...."
7. It was also held in the case of Suit Northern Gas Pipeline Limited supra that the same principle would be applicable in case of a petition filed under Section 12(2) of the Ordinance 2002 as applicable to a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution as the legislature has made it to the satisfaction of the Court that no other efficacious remedy is provided under the Ordinance 2002.
8. The petitioner retains remedy of review under Section13 of the Ordinance 2002 before the Authority; therefore, in presence of adequate remedy under the Ordinance 2002 the instant petition under Section 12(2) of the Ordinance 2002 is not maintainable. Consequently, it is dismissed with observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may avail remedy before appropriate forum available to him under the law where he can take all the grounds raised in the instant petition.