| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 436 2017 SLD 436 2017 PLD 111 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petitions Nos. 33661/2015, 31817/2013, 6569/2014, 1461of 2016 9214/2011, 9693 of 2011 and 262 of 2016, decided on23rd November, 2016. Date of hearing: 21st October, 2016.
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE
Kh. A. Tariq Rahim and Muhammad Azhar Siddique for Petitioners.Feisal Hussain Naqvi for Petitioners (in W.P.No.31817 of 2013).Muhammad Ahmad Pansota for Petitioner (in W.P. 6569 of 2014).M.N. Beg and Tariq Farooqi for Petitioner (in W.P.No.1461 of 2
Writ Petitions Nos. 33661/2015, 31817/2013, 6569/2014, 1461of 2016 9214/2011, 9693 of 2011 and 262 of 2016, decided on23rd November, 2016. Date of hearing: 21st October, 2016.
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE
Kh. A. Tariq Rahim and Muhammad Azhar Siddique for Petitioners.Feisal Hussain Naqvi for Petitioners (in W.P.No.31817 of 2013).Muhammad Ahmad Pansota for Petitioner (in W.P. 6569 of 2014).M.N. Beg and Tariq Farooqi for Petitioner (in W.P.No.1461 of 2
TEZ GAS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND OTHERS ERSVSOIL AND GAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND OTHERS --RespondentS
Law: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Production and Distribution) Rules, 2001
Section: 18
Law: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Production and Distribution) Policy, 2013
Section: 3.4,3.4.1,Clause4(iii)
(a) Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Production and Distribution) Rules, 2001 --- ----R. 18---Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Production and Distribution) Policy, 2013, Cl. 3.4---Tender notices for upliftment/sale of Liquefied Petroleum Gas ("LPG")---'signature Bonus" charged by Oil and Gas Development Company Limited ("OGDCL") for awarding contract for lifting LPG from different gas fields---Nature and legality of "Signature Bonus"---Whether Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority ("OGRA") could intervene to ensure that Signature Bonus was not charged---Whether Saudi Aramco Contract Price ("Aramco Price") was relevant for the purposes of fixing base stock price of LPG---The price of LPG was deregulated and determined by market forces in terms of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Production and Distribution) Policy, 2013---Neither the Government nor OGRA was required to fix the price of LPG---'aramco Price" was no longer relevant for the purposes of fixing base stock price of LPG---'signature Bonus" was not pegged or related to the price of LPG; it was a term and condition of the tender and did not increase the price of LPG---Licensees"/petitioners" participation in the tender process was based on their own free will, thus, payment of "Signature Bonus" was neither compulsory nor mandatory for the licensees/petitioners---Object of calling for bids on "Signature Bonus" was to provide equal opportunity to all prospective bidders and to receive the highest bid---Charging of "Signature Bonus" by OGDCL did not tantamount to unjust enrichment or abuse of dominant position in the market---Charging of "Signature Bonus" was neither illegal nor did it infringe any fundamental right of the licensees/petitioners---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Petitioners were in the business of marketing Liquefied Petroleum Gas ("LPG") pursuant to licenses issued by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority ("OGRA"). Petitioners purchased LPG from LPG Producers, and sold it to consumers. Petitioners impugned Tender Notices for upliftment/sale of LPG from different gas fields on the basis that Oil and Gas Development Company Limited ("OGDCL") was charging a "Signature Bonus" payable by the successful…