IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
Writ Petition No. 4314 of 2010. In the matter of:
An application under article 102 (2) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
-And- In the matter of: Md. Jashim Uddin
...... Petitioner
-Versus-
Karnafuli Gas Distribution Company Limited represented by the Managing Director and others.
None appears.
. . For the petitioner.
Mr. Lokman Karim, Advocate
. . . For the respondent No.5.
Present:
Mr. Justice J. B. M. Hassan and
Mr. Justice Razik Al Jalil
Heard and Judgment on 15.11.2023.
J. B. M. Hassan, J.
In this Writ Petition, the writ petitioner is the consumer of gas from the Karnafuli Gas Distribution Company Limited taking gas line in his establishment. During enjoyment of his gas connection, the respondent gas company issued impugned letter demanding gas bills on account of different heads including increasing gas load and meter tampering. Challenging the said demand letters (gas bills) the petitioner filed this writ petition and obtained the present Rule Nisi.
1
None appears to represent the petitioner when the matter is taken up for hearing.
However, Mr. Lokman Karim, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-gas company (respondent No.5) at the very out set has drawn our attention to section 40 of the Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission Act, 2003 and the regulation 3 of the Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission Dispute Settlement Regulations, 2021 which run as follows:
“40. Arbitration - Settlement by the Commission—
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .”
Regulation No.3 of “h¡wm¡cn He¡¢SÑ ®l…mV¢l L¢jne ¢hl¡d ¢eÖf¢š fË¢hd¡ej¡m¡, ” 2021 are as follows: “3z ¢h l¡d£u ¢ho u B hce c¡¢Mmz-(1) m¡C p¢¾p cl j dÉ Abh¡ m¡C p¢¾p Hhw ®i¡š²¡cl j dÉ EáÅa ®L¡e ¢hl¡d ¢eÖf¢šl SeÉ AC el d¡l¡ 40 Hl Ad£e L¢jne hl¡hl ¢m¢Ma B hce c¡¢Mm Ll¡ k¡C hz (2) B hc el p¢qa ag¢pm-L à¡l¡ ¢edÑ¡¢la gljÉ¡V ¢ejÀh¢ZÑa abÉ-Ef¡š J AeÉ¡eÉ fË u¡Se£u c¢mm¡¢c c¡¢Mm L¢l a qC h, kb¡x-
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .”
In view of above legal provisions, we are of the view that the petitioner’s remedy lies before the Energy Regulatory Commission and hence the writ petition is not maintainable having the alternative forum under the statute.
In the result, the Rule Nisi is discharged without any order as to costs.
Communicate a copy of this judgment and order to the respondents at
once.
Razik Al Jalil, J I agree.