Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 310 2010 SLD 310 2010 PLD 404
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 3708 of 2009, decided on 14th July, 2010. DATE of hearing: 4th May, 2010
ASAD MUNIR, J
Waseem Sajjad, Sami Zafar and Malik Qamar Afzal for Petitioners. Yousaf Khosa for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Tariq Aziz for
Respondent No. 3

DEWAN PETROLEUM (PVT.) and others

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others

Law: Rules of Business (Federal), 1973

Section: 14(2),14(3)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 57

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: XXVII-A,Rule1

Law: Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Section: 6(2)(w),12

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ---Art. 199---Rules of Business, (Federal) 1973, R.14(2)(3)---Constitutional jurisdiction--Scope---Contractual matter---Promissory estoppel---Applicability---Principles---Petitioner entered into a Petroleum Concession Agreement with the respondent/Government of Pakistan---After discovery of gas by the petitioner, respondent executed a development and commercial lease in favour of the petitioner and nominated Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited as purchaser of gas from petitioner company---Dispute arose over fixation of well-head price resulting from different interpretations of the relevant article of the Petroleum Concession Agreement---Parties, by mutual consent, referred the issue to the Attorney General for Pakistan who supported the version of petitioner company---Petitioner contended that the controversy was resolved by the opinion of the Attorney-General which was binding on the Government/respondent which refused to fix the price of gas---Petitioner further contended that the reference having been proposed by respondent (Government) itself, opinion of the Attorney General was binding on the Government/respondent on account of promissory estoppel---Respondent contended that constitutional petition was not maintainable as numerous remedies were available to the petitioner viz. arbitration, suit for specific performance that petitioner was not an `aggrieved party'; writ of mandamus could not be issued in the absence of any lapse on the part of any public functionary and that opinion of the Attorney General was not binding on the Government as the same was not the opinion of an expert of petroleum industry---Validity--Rules 4(2)(3) of the Federal Rules of Business, 1973 attached primacy to the Attorney General's opinion which could only be overruled by the Prime Minister or the Cabinet---Record showed that the Prime Minister had not overruled the opinion of the Attorney General---Dispute of gas price was, admittedly, referred to the Attorney General by the Prime Minister with promise and understanding given to the petitioner company that the opinion/advice of the Attorney General would be binding on both the parties…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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