| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1204 2019 SLD 1204 2019 PLD 376 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 38735 of 2017, heard on 18-03-2019.
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ansar Ali Sidhu and Ms. Saira Sabir
Respondent(s) by: Anwaar Hussain and Imran Khan Klair
Writ Petition No. 38735 of 2017, heard on 18-03-2019.
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ansar Ali Sidhu and Ms. Saira Sabir
Respondent(s) by: Anwaar Hussain and Imran Khan Klair
ARSHAD JAVAID GHUMAN
VS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHERS
Law: Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, (XI of 2016)
Section: 2(1)(b),2(1)(e),2(1)(o),4(2),6
(a) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016) --- ----Ss. 2(1)(b), 2(1)(e), 2(1)(o), 4(2) & 6 & Preamble---Gas Utility Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Allegation of embezzlement and fraud against employee of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited ("the Gas Utility company")---Whether amounts allegedly embezzled and obtained through fraud by the employee could be recovered by the Gas Utility company through the Gas Utility Court---First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the petitioner-employee for which criminal trial was pending---In the meantime, the Gas Utility company filed a suit for recovery along with damages against the employee and others which was pending in the Gas Utility Court---Employee moved an application stating therein that the Gas Utility Court did not have jurisdiction under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 ("the Act") to proceed against him---Held, that S.4(2) of the Act clarified that the jurisdiction of the Gas Utility Court was limited to disputes of the Gas Utility Company, consumers or gas producers or offenders---Gas Utility Court could exercise jurisdiction over a consumer, a gas producer or an offender as provided under the Act---Petitioner-employee was neither a consumer nor a gas producer or an offender under the Act, hence the said Act had no jurisdiction over the petitioner-employee---Joint reading of Ss.2(1)(o) & 6 of the Act provided that the Gas Utility Court was required to hear complaints and disputes with respect to amounts stated to be due or recoverable where there was purchase and use of gas for self-consumption or sale for vehicles' use---In terms of such definition, the Gas Utility Court could not seek to recover amounts alleged to have been embezzled or stolen by the employees of the Gas Utility company or contractors---Use of the term "gas theft and other offences relating to gas" in the Preamble to the Act did not under any circumstances grant jurisdiction to the Gas Utility Court to recover claims of embezzlement for the Gas Utility company---Nothing in law allowed a Gas Utility company to file claims before the Gas Utility Court alleging embezzlement, fraud and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492