IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Petition No.47-P/2017 
(Against the judgment dated 08.9.2017 of the Peshawar High Court  
Peshawar passed in Cr.A. No.338-P/2016) 
 
Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd through  
its G.M. Hayatabad Peshawar 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
M/s Saif Textile Mills Ltd. 3rd Floor Kalsoom Plaza, 2020, 
Blue Area, Islamabad, Industrial Estate Gadoon Amazai, 
District Swabi 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Asad Jan, ASC 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Shahid Qayyum Khattak, ASC 
 
Mr. Tasleem Hussain, AOR 
 
Date of hearing: 
30.6.2021 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Respondent is a textile 
unit, set up in Gadoon Amazai, incorporated under the Companies 
Ordinance, 1984 with the name and style of M/s Saif Textile Mills Ltd, 
powered on natural gas supplied by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited 
(SNGPL) through Meter No.74058, initially installed at the premises on 
27.11.2009. The gas company noted a substantial shortfall in the 
readings recorded by the meter and replaced it with a new one on 
24.01.2010. Loss to the exchequer was estimated as Rs.11.68 million. It 
is in this backdrop that the respondent arraying, amongst others 
Federation of Pakistan along with Gas & Regulatory Authority, SNGPL 
and Executive Engineer, SNGPL filed W.P. No.3433 of 2011 in the 
Peshawar High Court, seeking multiple declarations and prayers; the 
High Court, however, vide order dated 20.12.2011 transmitted the writ 
petition to the District & Sessions Judge/Tribunal Protection Consumer 
Interest Peshawar to redress respondent’s grievance; it also restrained 
the department from disconnecting the gas connection. The Sessions 
Judge transferred the complaint to the Consumer Court constituted 
under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997 
(Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Act No.VI of 1997), “the Act”. The complaint was 
dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2015, however, the High Court, vide 
order dated 3.7.2015, once again remanded it for decision afresh with 
results no different than earlier vide order dated 21.04.2016, impugned 
Criminal Petition No.47-P/2011 
 
2
by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court vide 
impugned judgment dated 8.9.2017 accepted the appeal in the following 
terms:- 
“For the reasons discussed above, I while 
accepting this appeal, set aside the judgment of 
the learned Consumer Court dated 21.04.2016 
and allowed the complaint” 
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was 
no occasion for the High Court, in the first place, to transmit the 
Constitution petition involving factual controversies requiring technical 
verification for determination to the Consumer Court and, thus, on each 
occasion the Consumer Court rightly dismissed the complaint. It is next 
argued that the Act is a Statute devised to protect legitimate rights of a 
consumer to have best value for his money and for that places specified 
obligations upon the manufacturer as is evident from its preamble; the 
respondent is not a consumer nor the petitioner a manufacturer within 
the contemplation of section 2(c) and 2(j) of the Act and, thus, the High 
Court had misdirected itself to refer the issue to the Court, an error 
rectified through successive dismissals leaving no space for the High 
Court to allow the complaint by putting at peril a colossal amount due 
to the public exchequer, concluded the learned counsel.  
3. 
 
Contentions raised need consideration; leave, inter alia, is 
granted to the petitioner. Mr. Shahid Qayyum Khattak, ASC has 
entered appearance to defend the impugned order. Office is directed to 
prepare the paper book with parties, at liberty to place the additional 
documents, if any. Since, a short matter involving public exchequer is 
involved, the office shall cause fixation of the appeal with all convenient 
dispatch.   
 
 
Cr.M.A. No.61-P/2017 
4. 
 
Operation of the impugned judgment shall be held in 
abeyance. 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Peshawar, the 
30th June, 2021 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-