LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that after the promulgation of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra) Ordinance, 2002, a deputy commissioner is not authorized to seal the business premises or impose any penalty.
The court said that the district coordination officer or the deputy commissioner does not have any power to act as an inspection officer except through written authorisation by the Authority.
The court passed this order on a petition of Khan Petroleum Service filed against sealing of its petrol pump and imposing a fine of rupees one million.
Gas theft cases: SC issues judgement on SNGPL appeal against LHC verdict
The court said that the constitution has provided safeguard to certain fundamental rights to every citizen including the right to freedom of trade, business and profession.
The court observed that when no alternate or efficacious remedy is provided under the law, only a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is competent to assail the impugned order.
The court observed that Article 199 of the Constitution empowers this court to pass appropriate orders for the protection of the rights of any aggrieved party against violation at the hands of public functionaries, who may misuse their power or authority vested in them.
The court said that the deputy commissioner does not have any power to act as an inspection officer except through a written order from the Authority.
The court said that the respondent deputy commissioner under rule 44 of rules 1971 imposed a fine of rupees one million but no such powers and penalty is provided in the said rule.
The court observed that under Pakistan Oil (Refining, Blending, Transportation, Storage, and Marketing) Rules, 2016, the respondent is only obliged to submit a report to Ogra or its chairman. It left with the Authority to issue a show-cause notice in writing to impose fine to the required, the court added.
The court said the law officer failed to produce any order of the authority through which the respondent was delegated any powers exercisable under the rules.
The court observed that it is a sorry state of affairs that the respondent while passing the impugned order in a manner of summary trial ignored the relevant provisions of law
The court said that since no remedy was available to the petitioner to assail the impugned order, this writ petition, therefore, falls within the purview of article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution, hence maintainable before this court.
The court, therefore, set aside the impugned order as illegal and without lawful authority and observed that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law to the extent of the petitioner.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed.