LexGAIL (INDIA) LTD. versus PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[201.6] 1 S.C.R. 525
GAIL (INDIA) LTD.
v.
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11450 OF 2014)
0
JANUARY 13, 2016
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R.F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 - ss.
28, ll{a) rw s. 12(J)(b)(v)--' Restrictive Trade Practice- Petroleum
and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Guiding Principles for
Declaring or Authorising Natural Gas Pipeline as Common Carrier
or Contract Carrier) Regulations, 2009 - Petroleum and Natural
Gas Regulatory Board (Affiliate Code of Conduct for Entities
Engaged in Marketing of Natural Gas and Laying, Building,
· Operating or Expanding Natural Gas Pipeline) Regulations, 2008
- Denial of access to common carrier capacity on reasonable
endeavor basis to the two pfpelines laid by the appellant to second
respondent - Whether discriminatory and amounts to Restrictive
Trade Practices - The Board as also the Appellate Authority held
the said practice as discriminatory and amounts to Restrictive Trade
Practice - On appeal, held: Issue as regards the applicability of
the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Affiliate Code
of Conduct for Entities Engaged in Marketing of Natural Gas and
Laying, Building, Operating or Expanding Natural Gas Pipeline)
·Regulations, 2'008 to the complainant-second respondent not
considered either by the Board or by the Appellate Authority- Unless
.the said issue is addressed, the complaint filed by the second
respondent before the Board should not have been disposed of-
Said issue framed and matter remanded back to the Board - Order
passed by the Appellate Authority as also by the Board set aside -
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorising Entities
to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand Natural Gas Pipeline)
Regulations, 2008.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11450
of2014.
525
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] I S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2014 of the Appellate
B
c
D
E
F
Tribunal for Electricity New Delhi in Appeal 52of2014.
Mukul Rohtagi, A.G, Tushar Mehta. ASG, Yoginder Handoo, Rajat
Nair, Darpan Sachdeva for the Appellant.
Parag !'. Tripathi, Piyush Joshi, Uttara Babbar, Sumiti Yadava,
Saurav Agrawal, Munawwar Naseem, Astha Gaur, Pradeep Kumar
Bakshi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. I. The main issue raised in this appeal is whether
the denial of access to common carrier capacity on reasonable endeavor
basis to the two pipelines laid by the appellant to the second respondent,
is discriminatory and amounting to Restrictive Trade Practices or not.
In the nature of the order we are required to pass in this case, it is
unnecessary to go in detail to the factual matrix.
2. The issue arises under the Petroleum and Natural Gas
Regulatory Board (Authorising entities to lay, huild, operate or expand
natural gas pipeline) Regulations, 2008 and Petroleum and Natural Gas
Regulatory Board (Guiding Principles for Declaring or Authorising Natural
Gas Pipeline as Common Carrier or Contract Carrier) Regulations, 2009.
3. In terms of the Regulations, the appellant published the available
common carrier capacity for the prospective contracting by any third
party.
4. On 19.11.2012, the appellant published an Expression oflnterest
for booking capacity by intrested parties mentioning therein that the
common carrier capacity thus available is on Ship or Pay basis.
5. Respondent No. 2, on 04.05.2013, expressed its desire to avail
the common carrier capacity on reasonable endeavour basis.
6. Failing to resolve the disputes between ship or pay and
reasonable endeavour basis, Respondent No.2 filed a complaint· before
G
the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (in short, "the Board")
on21.09.2013.
7. The Board, after elaborate discussions, allowed the complaint.
We shall extract the relevant portion as under :-
H
GAIL (INDIA) LTD. v. PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
REGULATORY BOARD & ORS. [KURIAN, J.)
52. The respondents explanation does not deserve any
acceptability or credibility at all because the common carrier
capacity has to be non-discriminatory reserved 011 jirst-cu111-
first-serve' basis without making any specific classification
for reservation of co1111non carrier capacity.
53. The practice adopted by the respondent on the one hand
reveals discrimination towards the custo111er like complainant
and on the other hand, resuExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.