IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present:  
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL  
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED 
 
Civil Petition No.509-P/2012 
(Against the judgment dated 14.09.2012 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in C.R. 
No.156-P/12) 
 
 
General Manager, SNGPL, Peshawar 
…Petitioner 
 
Versus 
Qamar Zaman and others  
 
..Respondents  
 
For the petitioner:  
Mr. Asad Jan, ASC 
 
For the respondents: 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
07.07.2021 
 
ORDER  
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J-. The petitioner, 
through instant petition for leave to appeal, has questioned the 
judgment dated 14th September, 2012 of the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar whereby civil revision of the petitioner against the 
concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court 
regarding decretal of suit of the respondent for declaration was 
dismissed and the concurrent findings of the two Courts below were 
upheld.  
2. 
On the very first day of hearing i.e. 30th June, 2021, this Court 
had observed that a short question of maintainability of the suit and 
jurisdiction of the Civil Court was involved, so, the respondents were 
ordered to be put on notice for 7th July, 2021. 
 C.P. No.509-P/12 
2
3. 
Today when the case was called for hearing, the Court 
Associate informed the Court that despite service of notice, the 
respondents are not in attendance. They are, therefore, proceeded ex-
parte.  
4. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments only 
to the question of maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the 
Civil Court in view of the provisions of Section 43 of the Oil & Gas 
Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 (the ‘Ordinance’) which reads 
as under:- 
“ 43. 
Ordinance to override other laws. (1) The 
provisions of this Ordinance, the rules and the regulations, and 
any licences issued hereunder shall have effect notwithstanding 
anything to the contrary contained in any other law, rule or 
regulation, for the time being inforce, and any such law, rule or 
regulation shall, to the extent of any inconsistency, cease to have 
any effect on the commencement of this Ordinance and the 
Authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, be 
exclusively empowered to determine the matters in its jurisdiction 
as set out in this Ordinance.  
(2) 
Nothing in this ordinance, or any repeal effected 
thereby, shall affect or be deemed to affect anything done, action 
taken, proceedings commenced, directions given, instruments 
executed or orders, rules or regulations issued under or in 
pursuance of any law repealed are amended by this Ordinance 
and any such things, action, proceedings, directions, instruments 
or orders shall, if in force on the commencement of this 
Ordinance, continue to be in force and have effect as if the same 
were respectively done, taken, commenced, given executed or 
issued under this Ordinance.” 
 
 
5. 
A look at the above noted provisions of law makes it 
abundantly clear that the provisions of this Ordinance will have an 
overriding effect and the Authority shall, subject to the provisions of 
this Ordinance, be exclusively empowered to determine the matters 
in its jurisdiction as set out in the Ordinance. Sub-section (2), noted 
above, gives protection to all the matters, acts done and laws in force 
on the commencement of this Ordinance.  
 C.P. No.509-P/12 
3
6. 
Section 6 of the Ordinance defines the powers and functions of 
the Authority. Sub-section (2) clause (q) of Section 6 empowers the 
Authority to protect the interest of all the stakeholders including 
consumers and the licensees. For ready reference sub-section (2) 
clause (q) of Section 6 of the Ordinance is reproduced below:- 
 
“6. Powers and functions of the Authority. (1)….. 
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, 
the Authority shall- 
(a) 
…… 
(b) 
…… 
(c) 
…… 
(d) 
…… 
(e) 
…… 
(f) 
…… 
(g) 
…… 
(h) 
…… 
(i) 
…… 
(j) 
…… 
(k) 
…… 
(l) 
…… 
(m) 
…… 
(n) 
…… 
(o) 
…… 
(p) 
…… 
(q) 
protect the interests of all stakeholders including 
the consumers and the licensees in accordance 
with the provisions of this Ordinance and the 
rules; 
(r) 
…… 
(s) 
…… 
(t) 
…… 
(u) 
…… 
(v) 
…… 
(w) 
…… 
(x) 
…… 
(y) 
…… ” 
 
Section 11 of the Ordinance prescribes the procedure for redressal of 
disputes by filing complaints which reads as under:- 
 
“11. 
Complaints. (1) Any interested person may file a 
written complaint with the Authority against the licensee for 
contravention of any provision of this Ordinance or of any rule or 
regulation.  
(2) 
The Authority shall, on receipt of a complaint, 
provide an opportunity to the complainant as well as to the 
licensee, or any other person against whom such complaint has 
been made to state its case before taking action thereon.” 
 C.P. No.509-P/12 
4
 
Similarly, Section 12 of the Ordinance, provides the right of appeal. 
7. 
The Ordinance being a special law explaining the powers and 
jurisdiction of the Authority and redressal of the disputes with 
overriding effect, then no other forum, Tribunal shall have the 
jurisdiction to step in for resolving the disputes. An overall look of the 
Ordinance would reflect that except the provisions of Section 43, 
which gives the overriding effect to the Ordinance, and the provisions 
of Sections 11 & 12 of the Ordinance, providing the procedure for 
resolving the disputes and appeal against the order/decision of the 
Authority, no other specific provision barring the jurisdiction of the 
Civil Court is there in the Ordinance. In the given circumstances, 
question would arise, as to whether a Civil Court, being a Court of 
plenary and ultimate jurisdiction, will have no jurisdiction to 
entertain the disputes referred to in the Ordinance despite the fact 
that there is no specific bar in the statute over the jurisdiction of the 
Civil Court? Answer to the above question would be a simple yes! No 
doubt, there is no specific bar provided in the statute over the 
jurisdiction of Civil Court but the above noted provisions of the 
Ordinance would reflect that an exclusive jurisdiction has been 
conferred on the Authority for determining the disputes referred to in 
the Ordinance which reflect the intent of the legislature. In such like 
situation, the jurisdiction of Authority is exclusive and the 
jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred but this would be an implied bar, 
very much permissible under the settled law and it will be equivalent 
to the specific bar provided in any statute.  
8. 
We have gone through the record of the case which reflects that 
the suit was filed on 25th March, 2010 when the ordinance was very 
much in the field. The petitioners/department, it appears so, had 
 C.P. No.509-P/12 
5
raised objections of maintainability of suit and jurisdiction of Civil 
Court just as a matter of routine and issue No.5 in this regard was 
framed and was dealt with in a cursory manner as no proper 
assistance was given to the trial Court. Similar is the case with 
memo of appeal before the Appellate Court and memo of Civil 
Revision before the High Court which contains the ground/objection 
regarding lack of jurisdiction but no proper contest by the 
petitioners and findings by the Courts. The question of 
jurisdiction being a crucial one, going to the roots of the case, 
was dealt with in a very casual manner.  
9. 
In view of the statutory provisions, noted above, this civil suit 
was not maintainable before a Civil Court of plenary jurisdiction. 
Thus the same was wrongly entertained by the Civil Court. Any 
judgment/decree/order passed/rendered by a Court having no 
jurisdiction would be no judgment/decree/order in the eyes of law 
and will have no binding force attached to it. So, in the 
circumstances, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being 
without lawful authority, jurisdiction and coram non judice, are set 
aside. Costs shall follow the event. We have been informed that the 
issue of department is still alive. So, we, in the circumstances, direct 
that the civil suit along with all necessary documents be sent to the 
Authority under the Ordinance and the same be treated as a 
complaint under Section 11 of the Ordinance, pending adjudication 
before the Authority, who shall decide the same strictly in accordance 
with law, surely after hearing the respondent, who was placed ex-
parte today. The office of the Civil Court shall retain the photo copies 
of the said documents as its record. This petition, in the given 
 C.P. No.509-P/12 
6
circumstances, is converted into appeal and allowed in the above 
terms.      
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
Judge  
Peshawar,  
7th July, 2021 
Nasir Khan /-  
‘Approved for reporting’ 
 
 
