S M ATTIQUE SHAH, J. Petitioners, through instant writ petition, have questioned the judgments / orders dated 03.02.2022 and 30.11.2022 of the worthy appellate authority and the worthy review authority respectively, functioning under the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA), whereby, their appeal and review petition against the decision/order dated 06.11.2013 of the worthy Designated Officers Committee accepting the complaint of respondent No.1 namely, Ms/A.J Textile Mills Limited, have been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel representing the private respondent at the very outset of the proceedings has challenged the very maintainability of instant constitutional petition on the ground that the matter in question has conclusively been decided, by the worthy statutory fora having exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same in terms of the provisions of OGRA Ordinance, 2002 and as such the same is not amenable to the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble apex court reported as Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and others (PLD 2001 SC 415).
3. Conversely, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently controverted such submissions by arguing that after exhausting the statutory remedies under the law, the petitioners have no other remedy except to have approached this court through instant constitutional petition and as such the present petition is maintainable in the given circumstances of the case.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Record depicts that the respondent being a consumer of the petitioners lodged a complaint against them under section 11 of the OGRA Ordinance, 2002 (the Ordinance) before the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority challenging therein an amount of Rs.46,0418,543/- for the alleged pilfering of gas. After proper proceedings, the ibid compliant was accepted by the worthy Designated Officers Committee vide decision/order dated 06.11.2013. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal before the worthy appellate authority in terms of section 12 of the OGRA Ordinance, 2002, which was dismissed vide decision/order dated 03.02.2022, their review petition there against in terms of section 13 of the OGRA Ordinance, 2002 also met the same fate vide decision/order dated 30.11.2022 of the Authority concerned. Hence, the instant writ petition by the petitioners.
6. It is evident from the record that while deciding the complaint of the respondent under section 11 of the OGRA Ordinance, 2002, the worthy statutory fora has provided full opportunity to both parties in support of their respective stance. After the impugned decision by the worthy Designated Officers Committee, the petitioners challenged the same before the worthy appellate authority in appeal in terms of section 12(1) and after its dismissal finally, they agitated the matter in review jurisdiction in terms of section 13 of the ibid Ordinance, which clearly suggests that they have already exhausted all the statutory remedies available to them under the ibid Ordinance.
Moreover, almost all the assertions, made by the petitioners, in the petition and agitated at the bar, are arising out of the factual aspect of the case, which indeed cannot be decided while hearing a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 being neither permissible nor desirable under the law, as the matter was exhaustively and conclusively dealt with by the statutory authorities, functioning under the provisions of Ordinance, 2002. Such like matters can only be agitated and considered by this court when it is proven that the same have been passed without lawful authority or coram-non-judice or the result of jurisdictional error or for that matter the statutory authority while determining the facts under challenge had resorted to unconstitutional practices or findings of facts are the result of misreading or non-reading of the material evidence or based upon no evidence amounting to glaring injustice or an error of law or jurisdiction or the fora below has appraise or reappraise the evidence in utter violation of principles' of appraisal of evidence. But when the situation is vice versa, then, this court is always very slow to enter into the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the competent forums of law. Certainly, role of the High Court while exercising extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction is limited only to the extent of correcting jurisdictional errors or for that matter procedural improprieties/irregularities just to ensure the proper administration of justice. Meaning thereby, that interference of this court in its constitutional jurisdiction cannot be asked as a rule rather at best it would be an exception applicable and acceptable on limited occasions and grounds in an appropriate case because this court only has to see that a court or tribunal dealing with the matter has the jurisdiction or competence to adjudicate upon it or has not transgressed the limits of its lawful authority. Indeed, exceeding from such parameters in any manner would itself land the High Court in the field of error which surely amounts to commit illegality. No doubt, this court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction is on higher pedestal as compared to the other ordinary/statutory jurisdiction but still it is a common misconception that the constitutional provision empowers the High Court to interfere with the decision of a court or tribunal of inferior jurisdiction which is passed after hearing both the parties merely because such decision is wrong. Assuming for the sake of arguments that even if this court in its constitutional jurisdiction reaches to a conclusion contrary to the findings of statutory fora regarding the propriety of a matter, it cannot substitute the same with that of the relevant fora which has decided the same in accordance with law keeping in view its legal and factual aspect in view of peculiar circumstances of the case. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the High Court in such circumstances is only confined to rectify wrongful or excessive exercise of jurisdiction by lower fora and address procedural illegality or irregularity, which may have prejudiced a case.
Rel. Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139); Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail and (PLD 1981 SC 246), Uzma Naveed Chaudhary and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2022 SC 783); Ghulam Nabi v.
Additional District Judge, Jhelum and others (2001 SCMR 683) and Hyderabad Development Authority through Executive Legal Officer v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others [2023 PLC (Sindh) 491].
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has tried his level best to make out a case for the interference of this court through his elaborate arguments insofar as the findings of the learned statutory fora are concerned but despite hectic efforts he could not succeed in this respect as he could not point out any jurisdictional error or procedural illegality or irregularity therein, so committed by the worthy statutory fora while dealing with the matter in hand. Being so, it can safely be held that this writ petition is liable to dismissal. Hence, dismissed.