There are loop holes in the manner TAPI Project is currently being handled. The writer was a member of TAPI TWG group during 2010 and 2011 and tried to keep the project on Track by sharing the knowledge with less informed members. However things do not always go the way they are planned. Currently the writer has objected on the contents of TAPI Operations Agreement and the case is pending in Islamabad High Court. The decision of Islamabad High Court will be uploaded as and when available.

1. IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD
(Constitutional Jurisdiction)
Writ Petition No.__________/2014
Syed Kamran Ali S/o Syed Mumtaz Ali, Deputy General Manager (Technical)
Interstate Gas Systems (Pvt) Limited R/o 128 C-1 NESPAK Colony, Near
Township, Lahore.
… … …Petitioner
Versus
1. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum &
Natural Resources, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad.
2. Inter State Gas Systems (Pvt) Limited through its Managing
Director having its registered office at 517, Main Margalla Road, F-
10/2, Islamabad.

2. 3. Government Holding (Pvt) Limited through its Managing Director
having registered office at House No.17, Street No.89, G-6/3,
Islamabad.
… … …Respondents
___________________
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973
____________________
Respectfully Sheweth:
1. That the addresses of parties provided in the heading of the
Petition are sufficient for service of process of this honorable
Court.
2. That the Petitioner is a Mechanical Engineer by profession with
MBA-Finance and has been working in the field of energy
particularly natural gas for last 20 years. The experience
includes Gas Transmission Pipeline Operation, Gas Metering, Gas
Custody Transfer Applications (Invoices & Electronic Flow
Measurement), Gas Transportation Agreement, Gas Sales
Purchase Agreements, Gas Operations Agreement and project
executions including feasibility and design. Currently, the
Petitioner is working in the Inter State Gas Systems (Pvt)
Limited the Respondent No.2 as Deputy General Manager
(Technical).
3. That the Petitioner was actively involved in finalization of Iran-
Pakistan Gas Sales Purchase Agreement which was signed in
2009, negotiated and initialed Iran-Pakistan Gas Operations

3. Agreement in 2009. The Petitioner was also a member of TAPI
Technical Working Group which negotiated the Turkmenistan-
Afghanistan-Pakistan-India Gas Sales Purchase Agreement and
Operations Agreement during 2010-11. Copy of the relevant
letters whereby the Petitioner was included in the TAPI Technical
Working Group is attached as “Annex-A”.
4. That the instant Petition is being filed in public interest as due to
actions and inactions of the Respondents, the fundamental rights
of the people of Pakistan are at stake. The honorable Supreme
Court has ruled in various judgments that the Government
officials are custodian of the public assets and therefore, cannot
deal with the same except in accordance with law.
5. That the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared the
Chagai Hills Joint Venture Agreement (related to Gold Mines in
Balochistan) illegal and void ab initio in the judgment reported
as PLD 2013 SC 641. Further, the privatization of the Steel Mills
was declared to be illegal in the judgment reported as PLD 2006
SC 697. Recently in a case reported as PLD 2014 SC 206, the
awarding of a project for extraction of LPG to Jamshoro Joint
Venture Limited was declared illegal due to lack of transparency.
Thus it is crystal clear that when there is lack of transparency on
part of the Government officials in a transaction wherein public
assets are involved then the Courts can intervene and protect
the same. Even otherwise, this honorable Court has ample
powers under Article 199 of the Constitution to have judicial

4. review of the executive actions in order to ensure conformity of
the same to the Constitution and law.
6. That the Respondent No.1 is a Federal Ministry which is
responsible to regulate and monitor the Oil & Gas Sector in
Pakistan. Further, under Schedule IV Part II Entry 2 of the
Constitution, the matters related to mineral oil and natural gas
exclusively falls under the legislative domain of Parliament.
Under Article 97 of the Constitution, the Federation has
executive authority to all such matters which fall under the
federal legislative list. Hence, the Federation has exclusive
executive authority to deal with matters related to natural gas
including import of natural gas from other countries in to
Pakistan.
7. That the Respondent No.2 is a subsidiary of the Respondent No.3
Government Holdings (Pvt.) Limited which in turn is wholly
owned by the Federation of Pakistan and operates under the
supervision of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources.
The Respondent No.2 was incorporated considering the future
plans of the Government for importing natural gas from other
countries. Further, the Secretary of the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Resources is the Chairman of the Board of Directors
of the Respondent No.2. Copy of the profile of Respondent No.2
is attached as “Annex-B”. Copy of the list of the members of
the Board of Directors of Respondent No.2 is attached as
“Annex-C”.

5. 8. That the Respondent No.3 holds more than ninety nine percent
shareholding of Respondent No.2 and the Managing Director of
the Respondent No.3 is the Chairman of the Finance Committee
of Board of Directors of Respondent No.2. Copy of the profile of
the Respondent No.3 is attached as “Annex-D”.
9. That the Rules of Business, 1973 explain in detail the extent of
the authority of Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources with
respect to matters related to the Oil & Gas field. Under Schedule
II Paragraph No.23(4)(ii), the Respondent No.1, inter alia, is
responsible for the investments made by the Government and
also for companies owned by the Government in the field of oil
and gas, it reads as under:
(ii) Matters relating to Federal investments and undertakings
wholly or partly owned by the Government in the field of oil, gas
and minerals, excepting those assigned to the Industries and
Production Division.
Copy of the relevant pages from the Rules of Business,
1973 is attached as “Annex-E”.
10. That from the above excerpt from the Rules of Business, it is
crystal clear that the ultimate responsibility lies upon the
Respondent No.1 to ensure that the companies owned by it
directly or indirectly are working diligently and are not causing
any losses to the Government or people of Pakistan intentionally
or otherwise.
11. That a project known as Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
India (TAPI) Gas Pipeline for import of gas from Turkmenistan is
being carried out by the Respondent No.2 under the supervision

6. of Respondent No.1 and 3. The following agreements under this
project have already been signed:
i. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was signed by the
Head of States of all the member countries during TAPI
Summit held at Ashgabat on 11th December 2010.
ii. Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement (GPFA) was signed by
respective petroleum ministers of four countries on 11th
December, 2010.
iii. Heads of Agreement (HOA) was signed by heads of
respective commercial entities on 19th September 2010.
iv. Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement (GSPA)- Turkmenistan-
Pakistan and Turkmenistan-India bilateral GSPAs were
signed by the heads of respective commercial entities on
23rd May 2012. On the same day, Afghanistan and
Turkmenistan have signed a Memorandum of
Understanding on “Long Term Cooperation in Gas Sector”.
Afghanistan has also signed the GSPA.
Copy of the information about the project available at the
website of the Respondent No.2 is attached as “Annex-
F”.
12. That now to move forward a quadripartite agreement known as
“Operations Agreement” is to be signed. This agreement mainly
deals with operational matters related to the Gas Measurement
details and allocation of Gas, delivered through a common
metering station at the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan border,

7. among the Buyers. All the Buyers shall have to pay for the value
of gas allocated to them through Gas Allocation Schedule.
13. That a draft Operations Agreement was circulated among the
parties. Copy of the relevant pages of the Operations Agreement
is attached as “Annex-G”.
14. That the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 has finalized
the draft Operations Agreement without taking input of the
Respondent No.1 and 3 and other officers of the Respondent
No.2 including the Petitioner. Further, the input provided by the
Petitioner and other officials was not considered and the MD has
finalized the Agreement. Copy of the emails sent by the
Petitioner to the MD of Respondent No.2 regarding flaws in the
Operations Agreement is are attached as “Annex-H 1, Annex-
H2 & Annex- H3 ” .
15. That the Draft Operations Agreement which was finalized by the
Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 includes clauses
which will be financially damaging for Pakistan.
16. That particularly the mechanism of “Allocation of Gas” stipulated
in Schedule 6 of the Draft Operations Agreement is a flawed
mechanism requiring Gas Allocation (quantity of gas to-be-paid-for
by each Buyer) on the basis of:
i. Buyer’s Nomination (a prudent forecast by Buyer regarding
his gas requirements, which is binding on the Seller for gas

8. delivery and on the Buyer for gas acceptance) in all
situations other than (ii) & (iii) below; and
ii. Buyer’s mutual agreement in a situation defined as “Short-take”;
and
iii. Transporter’s intimation in a situation defined as “Short-take”.
All the above referred three methods provided for determination
of Gas Allocation for each Buyer are flawed and will cause
serious disputes among the parties and will hard hit Pakistan as
the said mechanism is not aneither correct nor fair one.
17. That earlier the Gas Allocation Schedule was included in the Gas
Sale Purchase Agreement (the “GSPA”). During the Working
Group Meetings, The Petitioner on behalf of Pakistan pointed out
flaws in the said Gas Allocation Schedule, therefore, the same
was omitted from the execution version of the Gas Sale Purchase
Agreement. It was decided that the matter of Gas Allocation
Schedule will be taken up with the Operations Agreement.
18. That due to the fact that the Petitioner actively pointed out flaws
in the Gas Allocation Schedule, he was removed by the
Respondent No.2 from the committee involved in the
negotiations and finalization of the Operations Agreement.
Further, various coercive measures were taken by some officials
of the Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner for pointing out
flaws in the Gas Allocation Schedule including removal of

9. Petitioner’s name from Management Email-Group, withholding
the promotion of the Petitioner, initiating false enquiry against
the Petitioner and curtailing man-power / authority of the
Petitioner while carrying out official works. Copy of the email
correspondence sent by the Petitioner in this respect to the
senior officers of Respondent No.2 is are attached as “Annex-I 1
& Annex- I2 ” .
19. That the Petitioner was not discouraged by such illegal
techniques adopted by some officials of the Respondent No.2. It
is pertinent to mention here that it is not only the Petitioner who
pointed out flaws in the Operations Agreement, there are other
officials of the Respondent No.2 who showed concerns regarding
deficiencies in the Operations Agreement. However, when they
conveyed their concerns to the Managing Director of the
Respondent No.2, he did not give their professional observations
any weightage and said that the draft of the Operations
Agreement has been finalized. Copy of one such email sent by
some officers of the Respondent No.2 recommending
amendments in the Operations Agreement is attached as
“Annex-J”.
20. That the Petitioner being a technical person knows very well and
can demonstrate that the Gas Allocation Schedule which has
been included in the draft Operations Agreement will cause
financial burden for Pakistan for gas even not utilized by the
citizens of Pakistan.

10. 21. That the following are core flaws of the Operations Agreement in
general and Gas Allocation Schedule in particular:
i. The Article 5 (Notification of Failure to Supply) of the
Operations Agreement is flawed one as the Seller does not
have means to confirm individual reduction of gas supply
to each buyer as a result of delivery failure. The Seller can
only provide aggregate of reduced volume and allocation is
required to be carried out in line with allocation procedure.
ii. The Article 6.2 (Metering by the Gas Transporter) is a
flawed Article as the same does not include provisions for
metering by the Gas Transporter at the off-take point of
each buyer.
Schedule – 6 (Gas Allocation)
iii. The Clause 1 of the Gas Allocation Schedule states that the
gas allocation shall be in a consistent, fair and equitable
manner. However, this clause does not envisage that the
allocation is done in a correct way using the meter
readings for each buyer at their off-take point as well as
line pack variations (such information is only completely
available with Gas Transporter). No obligation has been
put on Gas Transporter to provide Seller with information /
meter readings required for correct allocation of Buyer’s
Delivered Volume.

11. iv. In the Definition of “DP buyers’ Delivered Volume” two
different terms “determined” and “Specified” have been
used for the same matter. Using two different terms will
ultimately confuse the matter and will affect allocation of
gas and as a result will entail financial consequences.
v. The definition of “short supply” has not been included in
the Gas Allocation Schedule. Further, Seller’s default in
connection with short supply has been completely ignored.
vi. “Short-take” is being defined as a fault of the buyer which
cannot be defined so unless the delivery pressure is above
the delivery pressure range.
vii. The formulas prescribed under Clause 3 are also faulty.
The opening sentence of the said clause reflects that the
Seller shall be incapable of correctly allocating gas unless
some information is made available to it by the
Transporter of gas.
viii. The Formula prescribed under Clause 3.1 as Scenario 1
fails to allocate gas correctly in case of a short supply
which results due to a “Rejection Notice” from one of the
buyers to take off-specification gas. This formula also fails
to allocate gas correctly in a scenario (no short take and
no short supply) where the Transporter determines that
one buyer is not able to receive gas equal to his nominated
volume as a result of unavailability of any allowance in
such buyer’s line pack balance.

12. ix. Under Clause 4, the Short Take Allocation Scenario is
discussed. Under Clause 4.1 if on any day a short take has
occurred by any buyer then such buyer may notify the
Seller of its Delivery Point Buyer’s Delivered Volume. This
sub clause 4.1 assigns the duty to determine the extent of
default to a buyer, whereas under the agreements and the
scheme of the project none of the buyers individually or
collectively have the means and information available to
determine their individual DP Buyer’s delivered volume.
x. Conditions prescribed under sub-clauses 4.1.1 to 4.1.3 can
never be met without intervention by the Gas Transporter,
however, in the said clauses there is no mention of the Gas
Transporter.
xi. The powers given to the Seller under sub-clause 4.1.4 will
cause disputes regarding invoiced gas volume, gas
reconciliation and under take penalty. Further this will
cause troubles for execution of the Gas Transportation
Agreement.
xii. Clause 4.2 fails to incorporate binding obligation on Gas
Transporter to notify information / meter readings to the
Seller that are necessarily required for correct allocation of
Gas.
xiii. It is completely ignored in the entire text of Schedule-6
(Gas Allocation) that the “Parties” to Operations
Agreement include Gas Transporter (subsequent to his

13. signing of Transporter’s Deed of Adherence) and necessary
obligations are not put on the Gas Transporter with
reference to allocation of gas.
22. That the above stated flaws in the Operations Agreement as well
as in the Gas Allocation Schedule will cause future operational
problems for Pakistan in addition to imposing additional financial
burden. Ultimately, the said financial burden will be shifted to
the citizens and consumers of the imported gas.
23. That the decision of the Respondent No.2 to accept the flawed
Gas Allocation Schedule is illegal, non-transparent, based on
mala-fide and ulterior motives. In addition to that, this gas
allocation mechanism is certainly not in favor of the people of
Pakistan.
24. That in other countries such upstream / entry-point allocation of
Gas (for common gas transportation pipeline receiving gas for
different Shippers through common meter) is correctly
determined either by an “Independent Allocation Agent” or by
“Gas Transporter” based on clearly defined rules / codes which
incorporate (as a minimum requirement) consideration of Off-take
meter readings, variation in line pack and Shippers’
Nominations (A Buyer is called a Shipper under Gas
Transportation Agreement). Some examples are provided:
a. Energy Market Authority of UK Singapore has published “Gas
Network Code” on its website, and Section-E of this code
provides mechanism of entry point gas allocation based on exit

14. point meter and gas pack variations (gas shrinkage as defined in
the code). Section-E & L of the Gas Network code Code is
are attached as Annex-K & Annex-L .
b. Joint Office of Gas Transporters UK have issued a Uniform
Network Code – Transportation Principal Document on its
website, and Section-E of this document provides mechanism for
entry point gas allocation based on exit point meter and gas
pack variations. Section-E of the Transportation Principal
Document is attached as Annex-M.
c. Access Arrangements of Australian Amadeus Gas Pipeline also
discuss entry point gas allocation, gas pack variations and exit
point allocations for correct reconciliation. Relevant Extract of
Access Arrangements is attached as Annex-N.
d. JEMENA is a large Australian energy provider (Gas , Electricity &
Water) and has made available on its website Queensland Gas
Pipeline Operation Manual which provides details of entry point
gas allocation, gas pack variations and exit point allocation. QPG
Operations Manual is attached as Annex-O.[network codes
for British Transco (Section-E), Australian NT and Queensland
Gas pipeline have also been included which may be discussed for
inclusion in this writ petition]
25. That Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority which has the mandate to
regulate all Gas Transportation Pipelines in Pakistan has placed
on its’s website draft “Third Party Access Rules” which also
recognize allocation of entry point allocation of gas to be

15. incorporated in the “Access Arrangements” based on entry-exit
meter readings, line pack imbalance and nominations. Attached
as Annex- L P .
26. That the draft Operations Agreement is soon going to be
executed by the Respondent No.2. If the said agreement is
executed it will cause grave and serious financial consequences
for the people of Pakistan as huge unjustifiable financial burden
will be imposed upon them.
27. That the Respondent No.1 and 3 have failed to supervise the
Respondent No.2 and to ensure that the draft Operations
Agreement is fair (particularly the Gas Allocation Schedule) and
does not impose on the people of Pakistan illegal burden. The
actions and inactions of the Respondents are being challenged
here, inter alia, on the following grounds:
GROUNDS
a. The inaction of Respondent No.1 in safeguarding the consumers
of gas from extra financial burden is contrary to the
responsibilities imposed upon it under the Constitution and Law.
b. That the Respondent No.1 has failed to fulfill its responsibilities
imposed upon it under the Rules of Business, 1973. Therefore,
appropriate directions are needed to be issued to the
Respondent No.1 in order to safeguard fundamental rights of the
people of Pakistan.

16. c. Under Article 97 of the Constitution, the Respondent No.1 has
been entrusted with executive authority of the Federation and
also under the Rules of Business it is its responsibility to protect
the investments of the Government in the field of gas and
supervise the undertakings (companies) owned directly or
indirectly by the Federation. The inaction of the Respondent No.1
is contrary to the command of the Constitution and law.
d. That the actions and inactions of the Respondents are also in
violation of Article 4, 18 and 24 of the Constitution. Further,
under Article 5, it is the duty of all citizens to have loyalty to
Pakistan. Moreover, having obedience to the command of law
and the Constitution is inviolable obligation of all citizens.
Therefore, actions and inactions of the Respondents are in sheer
violation of these provisions of the Constitution.
e. That the process of finalizing the draft Operations Agreement
lacks transparency as key officials were kept in dark and the
draft agreement was finalized by the MD of the Respondent No.2
for execution.
f. Under the Draft Agreement, additional burden shall be imposed
upon the consumers of gas which is not permitted under Article
24 of the Constitution. Further, additional burden of gas shall
preclude the citizens to establish new businesses, which is a
violation of Article 18 of the Constitution.
g. Under Article 29 read with Article 39 of the Constitution, it is the
responsibility of the Respondents to conclude such a deal which

17. ensures economic well being of the citizens of Pakistan.
However, due to actions and inaction of the Respondents, huge
additional financial burden will be imposed upon the people of
Pakistan hindering ultimately their economic well being which is
against the command of the Constitution.
h. That the Respondents are exercising their authority in a
colorable manner coupled with mala-fide and ulterior motives
which is amenable to the jurisdiction of this honorable court
available under the ambit of judicial review of executive actions.
i. That the Petitioner has exhausted all forums available to him in
the Company’s hierarchy and does not have any other alternate,
efficacious or adequate remedy for his grievance except filing of
a Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. Further, under
Article 199 of the Constitution, this honorable Court has ample
jurisdiction to issue directions to a person performing functions
in connection with the affairs of the Federation for doing
anything he is required to do under law.
j. That the Petitioner craves gracious permission of this honorable
Court for raising further grounds at the time of hearing.
Prayer:
In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstance, it is humbly
prayed that the inaction of the Respondent No.1 & 3 to supervise the
Respondent No.2 may kindly be declared illegal, and further, the
Respondent No.1 & 3 may also kindly be directed to look into the

18. matter and ensure that in the Operations Agreement a correct & fair
mechanism for allocation of gas is adopted.
Further, the Respondents may kindly be directed not to take any
coercive measures against the Petitioner for pointing out flaws in the
Operations Agreement and for filing the instant Petition.
Costs of litigation may also be awarded to the Petitioner.
Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in circumstances of the
case may also be granted.
Petitioner
Through
Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi
Advocate Supreme Court
Hafiz Naeem
Advocate High Court
Certificate:
As per instructions from the Petitioner, this is the first writ petition on
the subject matter and no other case is pending in the Supreme Court
of Pakistan on the same subject matter.
Counsel
KAZMIZ Advocates & Corporate Consultants
House No.14, St. No.48,

19. F-8/4, Islamabad
Phone: 051-285-4458 & 59
Fax: 051-2854460
Email: info@kazmiz.com