Statement of Qazi Zafar Ullah Advocate without on behalf of Complainant along with

complainant
I hereby, tender following documents in support of complainant’s contentions along
with complaint. Documents may please be brought on record.
i. Copy of Notice of NHA issued against encroachment. This notice was served after
the change of the ownership from provincial highway to National Highways
Authority and fresh lease was executed between the complainant and NHA after
within made by NHA (Mark A&B)
ii. Lease agreement with NHA. Wherein, lease hold rights, transfer to complainant
(available on file as Annex-A)
iii. Proposed sublease agreement draft which was not materialized along with
covering letter dated: 12-06-2003. Mark C consisting of 6 Pages.
iv. Copies of license renewed/issued by respondent No. 4. Mark D/ 1Pages. It is
worth mentioning that license were renewed in the name of Attock Oil whereas
Attock Oil was neither supplier nor applied for license. The license renewed is
tempered license.
v. Complaint submitted before the Wafaqi Mohtasib under the freedom of
information ordinance, 2002. (Complaint available on file is Annex-H)
vi. Reply/Comments of respondent No. 4 Muhammad Ashfaq along with covering
letter Mark E-1/3. In the reply respondent No. 4 Categorically denied that
licenses was not renewed till 2012 for want of valid registered lease agreement.
Whereas he used to renew the license. (Pages:03)
vii. Minutes of the Meeting chaired by Secretary Industries and petroleum dated:
28-02-2005. Para 5 &6, (i),(ii) are relevant regarding issuance of Explosive license
Mark F 3pages
viii. Letter dated: 14-01-2006 regarding the circulation of minutes of meeting and for
it compliance Mark-G 1Page
ix. Letter Dated: 15-01-2007 wherein the lease agreement between the owners of
Oil Company is mandatory. Mark H 2 pages
x. Reply to FIA by explosive department stating therein that for the renewal of
explosive license lease agreement was not required. They the referred decision
of Govt. taken in the meeting mentioned in minutes of meeting. They miss
interpreted the para 3 of the minutes of the meeting as it is mentioned in para 3
that’s storage license for the year 2006 for certain pumps maybe issued without
lease agreement and oil marketing companies shall submit the lease agreement
till 30-06-2006. The complainant’s pump does not fall within this category as
having lease hold right on the site. Mark J 5Pages
xi. Reply to FIA by Shall Company admitting that no sublease agreement was
executed Mark K 3Pages
xii. Correspondence of complainant with Shell Company regarding the solution of
different issues showing the complainant efforts for resolving the matter Mark L
8Pages
xiii. Affidavit of Shell Pakistan for the cancelation of storage license in which it is
mentioned that Shell Pakistan was the lessee of the site which is totally incorrect
Mark M 1Page
xiv. Why binding up the business by the Shell Pakistan Company with the
complainant and complainant approach to the explosive department for transfer
of license in the name of Attock Oil Company they demanded NOC of the Shell
Company. When the Shell Company was contacted in this regard they ask the
complainant to pay Rs: 1000000/- One Million for the issuance of NOC. Is the
explosive department was not transferred the license without NOC therefore
there was no other way with the complainant to pay RS: one million and
ultimately NOC was given by the Shell Company. The demand of explosive
department of NOC from the previous company was totally illegal In view of rule
125 of petroleum rules 1937 and coupled with the decision taken in the meeting
and clearly mentioned in the Minutes of the meeting. Mark N 2Pages