*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10th November, 2014
+ LPA 580/2014
RAJ SINGH DAHIYA .... Appellant
Through: Mr. Gautam Awasthi with Mr. Ayush
Chaudhary & Mr. Abhinav Tripathi,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija with Mr. Rohitendra Deb, Ms. Sanjogeeta Mokhtar & Ms. Mahima Bahl, Advs.
for R-1.
Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 13th May, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal in limine of W.P.(C) No.3005/2014 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was preferred seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 GAIL Gas Ltd. to fix the price of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, in accordance with reasonable and just policy and for supply of CNG to the LPA No.580/2014 Page 1 of 4 appellant, a dealer of the respondent no.2, at Sonepat, Haryana on the 'Base Rate plus Value Added Tax (VAT)' basis and for a direction to the respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI) to inquire into the conduct of the officials of the respondent no.2 in arbitrarily fixing / revising the price of CNG. The grievance of the appellant was that the respondent no.2 was supplying CNG at Kota, Firozabad, Meerut and Sonepat at different rates and which was resulting in the appellant losing business at its CNG station in Sonepat to another nearby CNG station in Delhi which was retailing CNG at Rs.10 less than what the appellant was retailing at, owing to the high supply cost of CNG to the appellant. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the issue of pricing is normally to be left to the discretion of the Executive and the Court could interfere only when the price fixed was arbitrary or based on extraneous considerations and that the appellant has placed no material on record to show that the price so fixed was arbitrary or based on extraneous consideration. Reliance in this regard was placed on Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
LPA No.580/2014 Page 2 of 4
2. The appeal came up before us first on 5th September, 2014 when, finding the appellant to have inspite of the aforesaid reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the petition, in the memorandum of appeal still not having given any particulars, we enquired from the counsel for the appellant as to what are the laws, rules and regulations regarding fixation of price of CNG by the respondent no.2. On request of the counsel for the respondent, the matter was adjourned to 29th September, 2014.
3. Even during the hearing on 29th September, 2014 the appellant did not produce anything save handing over extracts of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 particularly of Sections 11 and 12 thereof dealing with functions and powers of the PNGRB including of resolution of disputes.
4. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal as well as the writ petition also shows a total non application of mind in drafting thereof. In fact, passages in both are found to have been lifted / pasted from the letters / representations earlier addressed / made by the appellant to the respondent no.2.
LPA No.580/2014 Page 3 of 4
5. The learned Single Judge is fully justified in observing that the petition lacks in material particulars and no challenge to the price fixed can be made merely by alleging the same to be causing loss to the appellant. There is thus no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J CHIEF JUSTICE NOVEMBER 10, 2014 'gsr'..
LPA No.580/2014 Page 4 of 4