Unseen surplus: PHC issues notices to OGDCL, OGRA over gas supply in Karak
Health, finance Secretaries asked for replies over promotion of EPI employees
PHOTO: FILE
PESHAWAR:
A division bench of the Peshawar High Court on Monday issued notices to Oil and Gas Development Company (OGDCL) and Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) for not providing liquefied natural gas (LPG) to Sarhad Gas, a private company in Karak. It sought replies from the entities within a week.
Justices Roohul Amin and Syed Afsar Shah, while hearing a petition filed by Sarhad Gas through its lawyer Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, was informed about the production and demand of gas in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Gillani said K-P was producing 800 tonnes of LPG, while its demand was 415 tonnes. The province, he added, was only given 10 tonnes of LPG.
He argued his client was being deprived of its due right as the LPG was supplied to Punjab.
The petitioner’s lawyer contended two constitutional rights were being violated, besides Article 158. “It (the Constitution) stresses provinces in which the wellhead of natural gas is situated shall be given preference over other parts of Pakistan,” he argued. Also, as per the 18th Constitutional Amendment, it is the prerogative of the provinces to exploit their own natural resources, he maintained.
Showing a judgment passed in 2010, he told the bench the PHC ordered the federal government to first meet requirements of the provincial government and then supply surplus gas to other provinces. “Non-implementation is also tantamount to contempt of court,” he said.
Justice Amin enquired whether the judgment passed by this court earlier was sufficient. Gillani replied it was sufficient, but needed implementation. He requested for interim relief through 50 tonnes of LPG supplied to the petitioner by the relevant authority. However, the OGDCL lawyer argued the Sarhad Gas petition was filed for commercial interests. He argued his client did not have 50 tonnes of LPG to provide the petitioner.
The bench was informed a similar petition of the All Pakistan CNG Association was already in court. Justice Amin gave the respondents a week’s time to file a reply to which Gillani remained sceptical that delaying tactics would be employed.
The court also decided 50 tonnes of LPG would be supplied till further orders – if the respondents failed to provide a reply in the stipulated week. The bench adjourned the case till March 1.
Secretaries issued notices
The same bench also heard a petition filed by Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI), employees of which have sought promotions. The court issued notices to the health, establishment and finance secretaries as well as the directors of health and EPI, ordering them to file replies.
Ijaz Sabi, representing petitioner Muhammad Ismail and others, argued his clients had been appointed to various scales over the last 30 years. However, he said, despite the passage of such a long period, they were not promoted and their posts were not upgraded.
Sabi said the health secretary was informed about the lack of service rules for EPI employees and that many have to retire on the same grade they were recruited. A copy of the rules was sent to the secretary, but some objections were raised on the matter and it simply remained pending, he told the bench.
Safi argued the government had already adopted an eight-point formula for paramedics, but EPI employees were ignored which was illegal and unconstitutional. The bench, after hearing the arguments, issued notices to the respondents and ordered them to file a reply.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2016.
A division bench of the Peshawar High Court on Monday issued notices to Oil and Gas Development Company (OGDCL) and Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) for not providing liquefied natural gas (LPG) to Sarhad Gas, a private company in Karak. It sought replies from the entities within a week.
Justices Roohul Amin and Syed Afsar Shah, while hearing a petition filed by Sarhad Gas through its lawyer Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, was informed about the production and demand of gas in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Gillani said K-P was producing 800 tonnes of LPG, while its demand was 415 tonnes. The province, he added, was only given 10 tonnes of LPG.
He argued his client was being deprived of its due right as the LPG was supplied to Punjab.
The petitioner’s lawyer contended two constitutional rights were being violated, besides Article 158. “It (the Constitution) stresses provinces in which the wellhead of natural gas is situated shall be given preference over other parts of Pakistan,” he argued. Also, as per the 18th Constitutional Amendment, it is the prerogative of the provinces to exploit their own natural resources, he maintained.
Showing a judgment passed in 2010, he told the bench the PHC ordered the federal government to first meet requirements of the provincial government and then supply surplus gas to other provinces. “Non-implementation is also tantamount to contempt of court,” he said.
Justice Amin enquired whether the judgment passed by this court earlier was sufficient. Gillani replied it was sufficient, but needed implementation. He requested for interim relief through 50 tonnes of LPG supplied to the petitioner by the relevant authority. However, the OGDCL lawyer argued the Sarhad Gas petition was filed for commercial interests. He argued his client did not have 50 tonnes of LPG to provide the petitioner.
The bench was informed a similar petition of the All Pakistan CNG Association was already in court. Justice Amin gave the respondents a week’s time to file a reply to which Gillani remained sceptical that delaying tactics would be employed.
The court also decided 50 tonnes of LPG would be supplied till further orders – if the respondents failed to provide a reply in the stipulated week. The bench adjourned the case till March 1.
Secretaries issued notices
The same bench also heard a petition filed by Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI), employees of which have sought promotions. The court issued notices to the health, establishment and finance secretaries as well as the directors of health and EPI, ordering them to file replies.
Ijaz Sabi, representing petitioner Muhammad Ismail and others, argued his clients had been appointed to various scales over the last 30 years. However, he said, despite the passage of such a long period, they were not promoted and their posts were not upgraded.
Sabi said the health secretary was informed about the lack of service rules for EPI employees and that many have to retire on the same grade they were recruited. A copy of the rules was sent to the secretary, but some objections were raised on the matter and it simply remained pending, he told the bench.
Safi argued the government had already adopted an eight-point formula for paramedics, but EPI employees were ignored which was illegal and unconstitutional. The bench, after hearing the arguments, issued notices to the respondents and ordered them to file a reply.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2016.