Delhi High Court

Voice Of India vs Union Of India & Ors. on 21 January, 2010

Author: Manmohan

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        W.P.(C) 8415/2009 & CM 5295/2009

VOICE OF INDIA                         ..... Petitioner
                            Through:   Mr. Prashant Bhushan,
                                       Advocate.

                                   Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                  ..... Respondents
                   Through:            Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with
                                       Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Standing
                                       Counsel for R-1.

                                       Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Sandeep
                                       Sethi, Senior Advocates with
                                       Mr. Sidharth Singh, Ms. Divya
                                       Roy, Mr. Rakesh Dewan and
                                       Mr. Nikhil, Advocates for R-2 and
                                       R-3.

                                       Mr. K.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate
                                       with Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate
                                       for R-4.

                                  AND

+        W.P.(C) 9022/2009 & CMs 6524-6526/2009

INDRAPRASTHA GAS LTD.                  ..... Petitioner
                 Through:              Mr. K.K. Rai, Senior Advocate
                                       with Mr. Shiv Pandey and
                                       Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Advocates

                                   Versus

PETROLEUM & NATURAL
GAS REGULATORY BOARD
& ANR.                                 ...... Respondents
                Through:               Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior
                                       Advocate with Mr. Sidharth Singh
                                       Ms. Divya Roy, Mr. Rakesh Dewan
                                       and Mr. Nihil, Advocates for R-1.

                                       Mr. Abhinav Vashisht with
                                       Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocates for
                                       IOCL.


W.P.(C) 8415/2009 & 9022/2009                              Page 1 of 41
                                      Reserved on :        December 11th, 2009
%                                    Date of Decision : January        , 2010

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.


                                JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J :

1. With consent of parties both the writ petitions being W.P.(C)

8415/2009 and 9022/2009 are being disposed of by a common

judgment. While W.P.(C) 8415/2009 has been filed in public interest

under Article 226 of Constitution challenging the illegal and arbitrary

manner in which the affairs of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory

Board (hereinafter referred to as "Board") constituted by the Central

Government under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board

Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "PNGRB Act") are being run by its

Chairman, W.P.(C) 9022/2009 has been filed seeking quashing of

public notice dated 13th February, 2009 inviting bids from interested

parties for development of City Gas Distribution (hereinafter referred to

as "CGD") in Ghaziabad and also for quashing of the order/letter dated

19th March, 2009 by virtue of which Indraprastha Gas Limited‟s

application for authorisation in Ghaziabad has been rejected.

2. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(C)

8415/2009 submitted that in the absence of non-notification of Section

16 of the PNGRB Act, the Board constituted under the said Act had no

power to grant authorisation to entities which had applied to the Board

for Laying, Building, Operating or Expanding City or Local Natural

Gas Distribution Networks. Mr. Bhushan drew our attention to Sub-

section 3 of Section 1 of PNGRB Act, which stipulated that the said Act

shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by

notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. He stated that the said

Sub-section clearly postulated that different dates could be appointed

for coming into force of different provisions. Sub-section 3 of Section

1 of PNGRB Act reads as under:-

―1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.-

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint:

Provided that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be Construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision.‖

3. Mr. Bhushan also drew our attention to the Gazette Notification

dated 1st October, 2007 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural

Gas. According to the said Notification, PNGRB Act came into force

on 1st day of October, 2007, except Section 16 thereof. The said

Gazette Notification reads as under:-

―MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 1st October, 2007

G.S.R.637(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 (19 of 2006), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st day October, 2007 as the date on which the provisions of the said Act, except Section 16 thereof, shall come into force.

[F. No.P-23011/14/2007-Mkt.] D.N.NARASHIMA RAJU, Jt. Secy.‖

4. According to Mr. Bhushan, Section 16 read with Section 2(d)(B)

of PNGRB Act made it abundantly clear that authorisation could only

be given by the Board under Section 16 of the said Act. He submitted

that without the exclusive and monopolistic power being conferred on

the Board, it had no power to issue any authorisation to any entity.

5. Mr. Bhushan contended that the Chairman had illegally

appropriated the core powers of Members of the Board to himself in

order to get a free hand in taking all the important decisions on matters

involving several thousands of crores of rupees. According to him, the

Chairman had delegated onto himself the powers of the Board to

authorise entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local

Natural Gas Distribution Networks, the core powers and functions of

the Board, without first obtaining any general or special order in writing

as provided by Section 58 of the PNGRB Act. Section 58 of PNGRB

Act reads as under :-

"58. Delegation- The Board may, by general or special order in writing, delegate to any member or officer of the Board subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, such of its powers and functions under this Act (except the power to settle a dispute under Chapter VI and to make regulations under section

61), as it may deem necessary.‖

6. Mr. Bhushan further stated that the Chairman in 12th Board

Meeting held on 11th September, 2008 delegated the power of

authorisation onto himself despite strong dissent by two of the Board

Members. Mr. Bhushan stated that the members of the Board who

opposed the proposal of Chairman to delegate all the powers in relation

to authorisation, were not present in that particular meeting and the

decision to delegate their powers was taken in their absence. According

to Mr. Bhushan, while PNGRB Act envisaged collegiate decision-

making by a multi-member Board, all the important decisions of the

Board were taken by the Chairman individually without referring the

same to other members of the Board. Mr. Bhushan stated that minutes

of meetings were also manipulated by the Chairman. He stated that

Chairman did not even record the dissent notes of members who

objected to his arbitrary decisions. He further stated that respondent

nos. 2 and 3 in their Counter Affidavit had admitted this fact when they

stated that "it is totally in consonance with the universal practice which

is followed everywhere else that the dissent notes are not appended to

the minutes of the Board meeting....‖ According to Mr. Bhushan,

affairs of the Regulatory Board had been turned by the Chairman into a

one man show with other members virtually having no powers in day to

day affairs of the Board. He contended that important issues that

should have been decided by the Board were invariably discussed in

informal meetings of which no minutes or records were maintained.

According to him, dissent or objections raised by members during these

informal meetings were never recorded. He stated that when any issue

was taken up in a Board meeting, no voting procedure was adopted

although the PNGRB Act expressly provided for voting on issues on

which there was disagreement, thus, all matters that came up before the

Board were claimed to be unanimous even when there was

disagreement amongst Board members. According to him, even written

dissent notes circulated by the members were not taken on record.

Further, as per Section 11 of the PNGRB Act, all the authorisations had

to be given by the Board consisting of all its members and could not

have been delegated to the Chairman. He submitted that the Supreme

Court in a catena of cases has held that the core/essential functions

cannot be delegated by the Legislature. According to Mr. Bhushan, the

same principle also applied where a statutory authority had been

constituted under a Statute to undertake specific functions, and such

statutory functions which formed the basis of the creation of such a

statutory body could not have been delegated. Mr. Bhushan submitted

that the Supreme Court in the case of Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.)

Co. Ltd. Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors. reported

in (1974) 4 SCC 98 while discussing the law laid down on the issue of

delegation of essential legislative functions had held that delegation of

the same cannot be permitted. The relevant portion of the said judgment

reads as under :

―A review of these authorities therefore leads to the conclusion that so far as this Court is concerned the principle is well established that essential legislative function consists of the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a binding rule of conduct and cannot be delegated by the Legislature. Nor is there any unlimited right of delegation inherent in the legislative power itself. This is not warranted by the provisions of the Constitution. The Legislature must retain in its own hands the essential legislative functions and what can be delegated is the task of subordinate legislation necessary for implementing the purposes and objects of the Act. Where the legislative policy is enunciated with sufficient clearness or a standard is laid down, the Courts should not interfere. What guidance should be given and to what extent and whether guidance has been given in a particular case at all depends on a consideration of the provisions of the particular Act with which the Court has to deal including its preamble. Further it appears to us that the nature of the body to which delegation is made to also a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether there is sufficient guidance in the matter of delegation.‖

7. Mr. Bhushan further stated that the Chairman of the Board had

delegated the powers of hearing complaints to officers of the Board.

He stated that complaints had been heard and decided upon by the

Secretary of the Board. Mr. Bhushan further submitted that the

Secretary of the Board was incompetent to decide the

applications/complaints filed by the entities to the Board as Section

24(1) of the PNGRB Act specifically provided that any

complaint/dispute referred to the Board had to be adjudicated upon by a

Bench comprising Member (Legal) and one or more members of the

Board. Section 24(1) reads as under:

―24. Board to settle disputes - (1) Save as otherwise

provided for arbitration in the relevant agreements between entities or between an entity or any other person, as the case may be, if any dispute arises, in respect of matters referred to in sub-section (2) among entities or between an entity and any other person, such dispute shall be decided by a Bench consisting of the Member (Legal) and one or more Members nominated by the Chairperson.‖

8. Mr. Bhushan further submitted that Section 58 of the PNGRB

Act strictly prohibited delegation of power conferred under Section

24(1) of the PNGRB Act to any other authority. He submitted that

despite this, most of the applications/complaints had been heard and

decided upon by the Secretary of the Board who after passing an order

placed the same before the Chairman of the Board for his approval.

According to him, the PNGRB Act nowhere authorised Secretary or

any other officer of the Board to adjudicate upon the

applications/complaints filed by the entities before the Board. This

power was only vested with the Members of the Board, it being their

core function, and as such could only have been exercised by them.

9. Mr. Bhushan further contended that respondent no. 4, Mr. B.S.

Negi, had abused his position as Member (Technical/Infrastructure) of

the Board as his son was running a parallel consultancy services for the

entities which applied to the Board for authorisation of various city gas

distribution networks. In this context, he pointed out that on 23rd and

24th January, 2008 Euro-Asian Conference Cum Exhibition for city gas

distributors in Delhi was jointly organised by National Engineering &

General Industries (NEGI) and two other companies. He stated that the

said Company „NEGI‟ belonged to the son of Mr. B.S. Negi who under

the guidance of his father had been running a consultancy Company

which provided consultancy services to entities which applied to the

Board for authorization to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local

Natural Gas Distribution Networks. The conference was sponsored by

oil and gas companies which fell under the regulatory purview of the

Board of which Mr. B.S. Negi was Member (Technical). He stated that

the Company profile, which had been downloaded by the petitioner

from the website of the abovementioned company, clearly established

that the said Company was directly involved in the business of

providing consultancy to companies who had or were looking forward

to apply to the Board for authorisation to Lay, Build, Operate or

Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks. In fact, in

the Company profile, the Company had boastfully stated that it had

high contacts in the Government departments.

10. Mr. Bhushan further stated that the Board in its letter dated 25th

August, 2009 addressed to Director (GP) of the Ministry of Petroleum

and Natural Gas had admitted that abovementioned ―consultancy firm

had provided market survey on non-exclusive basis for the GA of

Chandigarh to a company and for GA of Allahabad (both covered in

the second round), to a consultant‖. This, according to Mr. Bhushan,

amounted to a serious conflict of interest in the functioning of the

Board and thus an inquiry, as stipulated under Section 7 of the PNGRB

Act, be initiated against Mr. B.S. Negi for abusing his position as a

member of the Board. Section 7 of the said Act reads as under :-

―7. Removal of Chairperson or any other member from office.- The Central Government may remove from office the Chairperson or any other member, who--

(a) has been adjudged as insolvent; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Central Government, involves moral turpitude; or

(c) has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a member; or

(d) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member; or

(e) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest:

Provided that no Chairperson or other member shall be removed from office under clause (d) or clause (e) unless the Central Government, after holding an inquiry by any person appointed or authority constituted for the purpose and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed in this behalf, is satisfied that such person ought on such ground or grounds to be removed.‖

11. Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for Indraprastha

Gas Limited (hereinafter referred to as "IGL") in W.P.(C) 9022/2009

stated that IGL had on the direction of Environment Pollution

(Prevention and Control) Authority (hereinafter referred to as

"EPCA"), a statutory authority constituted under Section 3 of the

Environment Protection Act (Protection) 1986, prepared a plan to

introduce CNG in Delhi and neighbouring NCR areas including

Ghaziabad. In this connection, he referred to the following

observations of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India

& Ors. reported in (2002) 4 SCC 356 wherein the Supreme Court has

held that, "the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control)

Authority is a statutory authority constituted under Section 3 of the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and its directions are final and

binding on all persons and organisations concerned. This position has

been reiterated by this Court in Sector 14 Residents' Welfare Assn. v.

State of Delhi : (1999) 1 SCC 161. It is this authority which had

directed the phasing out of non-CNG buses. It is the Bhure Lal

Committee which had also recommended the conversion to CNG mode

and issued directions that non-CNG buses should be phased out‖. Mr.

Rai further stated that EPCA has been issuing periodic directions to

IGL to expedite the work of supply of CNG in Ghaziabad. In this

connection, Mr. Rai referred to the minutes of various meetings held by

EPCA. The relevant portion of the Minutes of the EPCA Meeting held

on 31st October, 2009 reads as under :-

―EPCA asked IGL to expedite the work in order to ensure early supply of CNG in Ghaziabad and other NCR towns as this is important for ensuring seamless movement of CNG vehicles in NCR. EPCA desired that IGL should regularly pursue concerned government agencies of U.P. and Haryana for speedy progress in their expansion programme in Ghaziabad/Noida/Greater Noida and Faridabad/ Gurgaon. EPCA also requested NCRPB to write to Ghaziabad Authorities for helping IGL for early implementation of Ghaziabad CNG supply project.‖

12. Mr. Rai stated that prior to coming into force of the PNGRB Act,

petitioner-IGL had not only conducted a detailed feasibility report at a

cost of Rs.28 lacs but had also after depositing Rs.1,50,00,000/-(Rupees

one crore and fifty lacs) obtained a „No Objection Certificate‟ for

development gas distribution pipeline for Ghaziabad. He pointed out

that petitioner-IGL had on 24th January, 2006 even entered into an

agreement with GAIL for supply of Re-gasified Liquified Natural Gas

(RLNG) for the city of Ghaziabad.

13. Mr. Rai further stated that the pipeline through Ghaziabad was

integral and contiguous to the East-Delhi network of IGL and was

essential to cater to the demand of the upcoming Common Wealth

Games. According to him, the CGD networks in Delhi and Ghaziabad

was essentially a unified and integrated network with a common City

Gate Station and Steel main pipeline.

14. Mr. Rai pointed out that prior to IGL‟s rejection for

authorisation, IGL had not only completed two CNG Stations namely,

Mohan Nagar Filling Station and Sharma Filling Station but had also

purchased land for filling stations at Sanjay Nagar and Vaishali. He

stated that IGL‟s twelve CNG stations were in advanced stages of

completion and could start supplying CNG as soon as three months.

15. Mr. Rai submitted that the impugned public notice dated 13th

February, 2009 inviting bids for Ghaziabad in accordance with

Regulation 5(5) was illegal as the same had been issued prior to

rejection of IGL‟s application for authorization under Regulation 18(8).

According to him, prior issuance of public notice, showed that IGL‟s

authorisation application had been rejected with a pre-determined mind.

Mr. Rai further submitted that in the absence of notification of Section

16 of the PNGRB Act, Regulations issued in 2006 were illegal being

inconsistent with the said Act inasmuch as the Regulations which were

subordinate legislation could not have been used to empower the Board

to usurp the power of authorization.

16. Mr. Rai pointed that the PNGRB had acted contrary to the

specific opinion of the then Solicitor General who had opined that in

view of non-notification of Section 16 of the PNGRB Act, the power

of the Board to grant authorisation had not come into force and in fact,

the Board‟s insistence on grant of authorisation was unreasonable and

without jurisdiction. He further stated that despite the Member (Legal)

of the Board having brought to the notice of the Chairman the aforesaid

opinion and having asked the Chairman not to proceed with the grant of

authorisation in the absence of notification of Section 16, the Chairman

had continued to issue authorisations.

17. Mr. Rai also submitted that the impugned letter/order dated 19 th

March, 2009 of the respondent-Board rejecting IGL‟s application for

grant of authorization for Ghaziabad was in violation of principles of

natural justice inasmuch as IGL had not been heard by the Board

constituted under the PNGRB Act and the impugned decision had been

taken by the Secretary of the Board who was merely a facilitator. Mr.

Rai lastly submitted that the essential function of the Board including

the power to grant or reject authorization to entities could not have been

delegated by the Board to its Chairman and assuming so, it could be

done, the Chairman certainly could not have sub-delegated its power to

the Secretary of the Board. He stated that inspection of the file

rejecting IGL‟s application for authorization showed that the impugned

order had never been placed before the PNGRB Board and the order

prepared by the Secretary had been approved by the Chairman in the

name of the Board with two minor changes.

18. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned ASG appearing for Union of India

submitted that in view of non-notification of Section 16, the Board was

not empowered to issue authorisations for laying, building, operating or

extending any pipeline as a city or local natural gas distribution

networks. He stated that the Board was free to undertake preparatory

work and the applications could be processed till the stage of issuance

of letters of intent.

19. Regarding the delegations of powers, Mr. Chandhiok submitted

that the Board was a multi-member body and it could not divest itself of

its core functions by delegating the same to the Chairman.

20. As far as the allegation against Shri B.S. Negi was concerned,

Mr. Chandhiok stated that the Central Government had called for

comments from the Board with regard to the specific allegations against

respondent no.4. He stated that the comments had been received from

the Board vide letter dated 03rd August, 2009 and the same were under

consideration of the concerned Ministry.

21. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for

the Board submitted that Section 19 of PNGRB Act was a stand-alone

Section and even Section 17 read with Sections 23, 24 and 48 of

PNGRB Act were independent substantive provisions. Sections 17, 19,

23, 24 and 48 read as under :-

"17. Application for authorization-(1) An entity which is laying, building, operating or expanding, or which proposes to lay, build, operate or expand, a pipeline as a common carrier or contract carrier shall apply in writing to the Board for obtaining an authorisation under this Act:

Provided that an entity laying, building, operating or expanding any pipeline as common carrier or contract carrier authorised by the Central Government at any time before the appointed day shall furnish the particulars of such activities to the Board within six months from the appointed day.

(2) An entity which is laying, building, operating or expanding, or which proposes to lay, build, operate or expand, a city or local natural gas distribution network shall apply in writing for obtaining an authorisation under this Act:

Provided that an entity laying, building, operating or expanding any city or local natural gas distribution network authorised by the Central Government at any time before the appointed day shall furnish the particulars of such activities to the Board within six months from the appointed day.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) shall be made in such form and in such manner and shall be accompanied with such fee as the Board may, by regulations, specify.

(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act and consistent with the norms and policy guidelines laid down by the Central Government, the Board may either reject or

accept an application made to it, subject to such amendments or conditions, if any, as it may think fit.

(5) In the case of refusal or conditional acceptance of an application, the Board shall record in writing the grounds for such rejection or conditional acceptance, as the case may be.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

19. Grant of authorization- (1) When, either on the basis of an application for authorisation for laying, building, operating or expanding a common carrier or contract carrier or for laying, building, operating or expanding a city or local natural gas distribution network is received or on suo motu basis, the Board forms an opinion that it is necessary or expedient to lay, build, operate or expand a common carrier or contract carrier between two specified points, or to lay, build, operate or expand a city or local natural gas distribution network in a specified geographic area, the Board may give wide publicity of its intention to do so and may invite applications from interested parties to lay, build, operate or expand such pipelines or city or local natural gas distribution network.

(2) The Board may select an entity in an objective and transparent manner as specified by regulations for such activities.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

23. Suspension or cancellation of authorisation - If the Board, on an application of an affected party or on its own motion, is satisfied that the entity in favour of which authorisation has been granted under section 19 has failed to comply with any conditions of authorisation, it may, after giving an opportunity to such entity of being heard, either suspend the authorisation for such period as the Board may think fit or cancel the authorisation:

Provided that where the Board is of the opinion that an authorised entity persistently acts in a manner prejudicial to the interests of consumers, it may take action for the suspension of the authorisation immediately subject to the opportunity of hearing being given subsequently, after which action so taken may be confirmed or revoked.

24. Board to settle disputes- (1)Save as otherwise provided for arbitration in the relevant agreements between entities or between an entity or any other person, as the case may be, if any dispute arises, in respect of matters referred to in sub-section (2) among entities or between an entity and any other person, such

dispute shall be decided by a Bench consisting of the Member (Legal) and one or more members nominated by the Chairperson:

Provided that if the members of the Bench differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to a member other than a member of the Bench for hearing on such point or points and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of that member.

(2)The Bench constituted under sub-section (1) shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable by a civil court on any matter relating to --

(a)refining, processing, storage, transportation and distribution of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas by the entities;

(b)marketing and sale of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas including the quality of service and security of supply to the consumers by the entities; and

(c)registration or authorisation issued by the Board under section 15 or section 19.

(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908), the Board shall have the power to decide matters referred to in sub-section (2) on or after the appointed day.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

48. Punishment for laying, building, operating or expanding a common carrier or contract carrier without authorisation- If a person lays, builds, operates or expands a common carrier or contract carrier or a city or local natural gas distribution network without obtaining authorisation required under section 19, such person shall be liable for punishment with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or penalty of twenty-five crore rupees or with both, and in case of continuing contravention with additional fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees for every day during which the contravention continues.‖

22. Mr. Nayar submitted that Section 16 on the one hand and Section

19 on the other hand were mutually exclusive provisions. He submitted

that Sections 23 and 24(2)(c) referred to Section 19 of the PNGRB Act,

and not to Section 16 and similarly the penal provision contained in

Section 48 referred to Section 19 and not to Section 16. According to

him, this was a clear indicator of legislative intent that the provisions of

Section 17 and 19 of the PNGRB Act were not incidental to or

procedural but were substantive provisions independent of Section 16.

Mr. Nayar stated that if Section 16 alone was the substantive provision,

then in other provisions such as Sections 23, 24 and 48 of the PNGRB

Act, the reference would have been to Section 16 and not to Section 19.

Thus, he submitted that the effect of non-notification of Section 16 and

its interpretation could not be guided only by reading Section 16 with

the definition of „authorised entity‟ contained in Section 2(d).

23. Mr. Nayar stated that if the legislative intent was to inhibit the

implementation of Sections 11, 17 and 19 or for that matter even

Sections 23 and 24, the notification dated 1st October, 2007 rather than

restricting itself to Section 16 would have clearly spelt out that Sections

11, 17 and 19 of PNGRB Act had also not been notified. According to

Mr. Nayar, the effect of non-notification of Section 16 was only that the

authorisations before the appointed date would be safe and no further

authorisation would be necessary from the Board unless any change in

the purpose and the usage was contemplated.

24. Mr. Nayar next submitted that in statutory interpretations, one of

the rules followed by the Courts was to see as to how the Government

or its concerned departments had acted in pursuance to the notification

etc. Mr. Nayar stated that in the instant case, admittedly the Central

Government by its letter dated 5th October, 2007 had transferred all

pending applications for grant of authorisations to the Board even

though it was aware that Section 16 had not been notified. According

to Mr. Nayar, the Central Government by transferring all pending

applications to the Board had obviously considered the other provisions

as independent and mutually exclusive to Section 16. He submitted that

similarly by yet another letter of February, 2009 the Central

Government had asked the Board to keep certain aspects in mind while

granting authorisations to the entities. Consequently, according to Mr.

Nayar, the conduct of the Central Government supported the

interpretation that merely because Section 16 had not been notified, it

did not render the Board powerless to exercise the function of grant of

authorisations by recourse to Sections 17 and 19 of the PNGRB Act.

25. Mr. Nayar next submitted that it was settled law that if a

particular interpretation stalled or impeded the object of PNGRB Act

and another interpretation made it workable consistent with the object

of the Act enacted, then the latter interpretation was preferable to the

former. Mr. Nayar submitted that if the Board was held to be

powerless to grant authorisations and the Central Government had also

transferred applications to the Board, then a vacuum would be created

and the intent of constituting a qualified Board under the PNGRB Act

would be frustrated inasmuch as the Chairperson and other members of

the Board by virtue of Section 4 of the PNGRB Act had been appointed

from amongst persons of eminence in the fields of petroleum and

natural gas industry, management, finance, law, administration or

consumer affairs. Mr. Nayar stated that the Central Government

having transferred pending applications and having never questioned

the powers and jurisdiction of the Board ever since 1 st October, 2007

except for the inconsistent stand for the first time half heartedly

canvassed in their short counter affidavit in the present writ petition,

made it obvious that the power exercised by the Board in such

circumstances in any event was not illegal or invalid and the Central

Government cannot, in any event, be permitted to approbate and

reprobate merely because a PIL had been filed.

26. Mr. Nayar next submitted that no power had been delegated to

the Secretary of the Board to hear and decide the

applications/complaints. According to him, the Secretary was only

scrutinising and processing complaints and petitions received from the

Board in accordance with the Board‟s resolution. He submitted that

there was no delegation of powers by the Chairperson to the Secretary

to hear and decide the complaints and the Members of the Board had

decided the disputes in accordance with the procedure under Section 24

of the PNGRB Act.

27. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel for respondent-Board

in W.P. (C) 9022/2009 submitted that all the Regulations made by the

respondent-Board had been laid before Parliament for approval by the

concerned Ministry. He submitted that had there been any doubt of the

legislative intent of empowering the Board to grant authorisation, the

Government would not have indulged in such a futile exercise. In this

connection, Mr. Sethi relied upon Section 62 of the PNGRB Act which

reads as under:-

"62. Rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament - Every rule made by the Central Government and every regulation made by the Board under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation.‖

28. Mr. Sethi also relied upon the Minister of State of Petroleum and

Natural Gas response to a question in Parliament wherein the Minister

had asserted that the PNGRB was fully empowered to grant

authorisation by virtue of the PNGRB Act.

29. Mr. Sethi further submitted that in the present case the Chairman

of the Board had been specifically delegated the power for taking

appropriate decision on applications for grant of authorisation.

According to Mr. Sethi, the said delegation was in accordance with

Sections 6, 8 and 58 of the PNGRB Act. Sections 6 and 8(3) of

PNGRB Act read as under:-

―6. Powers of Chairperson- The Chairperson shall have the powers of general superintendence and directions in the conduct of the affairs of the Board and shall, in addition to presiding over the meetings of the Board, exercise and discharge such other powers and functions of the Board, as may be assigned to him by the Board.

                   xxxx         xxxx          xxxx          xxxx


              8. Meetings of the Board-
                  xxxx          xxxx          xxxx          xxxx

(3) All questions which come up before any meeting of the Board shall be decided by a majority of the members present and voting, and in the event of an equality of votes, the Chairperson or in his absence, the person presiding shall have a second or casting vote.‖

30. The relevant portion of the Minutes of the 12th Board Meeting

dated 11th September, 2008 reads as under:-

―(iv) Delegation of Powers for taking decision during processing of applications for grant of authorization.

The board deliberated in detail on the issue of delegation of powers for making decisions during and after processing of applications for grant of authorization and decided to empower the Chairperson for taking appropriate decisions on the application/EOIs for grant of authorization in accordance with the provisions of PNGRB (Authorizing Entities to lay, build, operate or Expand city or Natural Gas distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008 and the PNGRB (Authorizing Entities to lay, build, operate or Expand Natural Gas Pipelines) Regulations, 2008. It was also decided that in such cases as the Chairperson may deem fit, he may refer those cases to a Committee consisting of two or more members of the board to hear the applicants and make recommendations.‖

(emphasis supplied)

31. However, Mr. Sethi stated that in practice, no major decision had

unilaterally been taken by the Chairperson or anybody else, especially

in matters of grant of authorisation. He stated that LOI‟s were only

issued in a meeting where the entire Board was present.

32. Mr. Sethi lastly submitted that principles of natural justice had

not been violated in the present instance as it was not mandatory in law

for the entire Board to give a personal hearing to IGL. In this

connection, he drew our attention to a judgment of Privy Council

rendered in the case of Jeffs Vs. New Zealand Dairy Production and

Marketing Board reported in (1967) 2 W.L.R. 136 wherein it has held

as under:-

―On the facts of this case it does not appear that the board asked the committee to hold the public hearing or delegated to the committee any part of its duties. Subject to the provisions of the Act and of any regulations thereunder, the board can regulate its procedure in such manner as it thinks fit (1961 Act, s. 12 (10). Whether the board heard the interested parties orally or by receiving written statements from them is, as Hamilton L.J. said in Rex v. Local Government Board, Ex parte Arlidge, a matter of procedure. Equally it would have been a matter of procedure if the board had appointed a person or persons to hear and receive evidence and submissions from interested parties for the purpose of informing the board of the evidence and submissions (see Osgood v. Nelson and Rex v. Local Government Board, Ex parte Arlidge. This procedure may be convenient when the credibility of witnesses is not involved, and if it had been followed in this case and as a result the board, before it reached a decision, was fully informed of the evidence given and the submissions made and had considered them, then it could not have been said that the board had not heard the interested parties and had acted contrary to the principles of natural justice. In

some circumstances it may suffice for the board to have before it and to consider an accurate summary of the relevant evidence and submissions if the summary adequately discloses the evidence and submissions to the board.

Unfortunately no such procedure was followed in this case. The committee was not appointed by the board, nor was it asked by the board to receive evidence for transmission to it. The committee's report did not state what the evidence was and the board reached its decision without consideration of and in ignorance of the evidence.‖

33. Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for

respondent no.4 in WP(C)8415/2009 vehemently disputed the

allegations made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan against respondent no.4. In

any event, he submitted that as the Central Government was already

examining the allegations against respondent no.4, it would not be open

for this Court in the present proceedings to re-examine the said

allegations.

34. Mr. Abhinav Vashisht, learned counsel for intervenor-IOCL

adopted and emphasised the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajiv Nayar.

35. Having heard the parties, we are of the view that it is through the

principle of judicial review that the rule of law and other constitutional

principles have to be given practical effect. Supervisory jurisdiction of

a High Court has to be used to ensure that regulatory bodies, whether

public or private, while performing public functions comply with the

law and achieve acceptable standards of administration.

36. Upon reading of the entire PNGRB Act, we are of the view that

the legislative intent behind the PNGRB Act is to provide for

establishment of a multi-member Regulatory Board to regulate the

refining, processing, storage, transportation, distribution, marketing,

and sale of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas so as to

protect the interests of the consumers and entities engaged in specified

activities relating to the said products and to ensure their uninterrupted

and adequate supply in all parts of the country and to promote

competitive markets.

37. On October 1, 2007, the Central Government in exercise of its

powers under Sub-section 3 of Section 1 of the PNGRB Act notified all

the provisions of the said Act except Section 16 which empowers the

Board to authorize entities which apply to it for laying, building,

operating city gas networks or common carrier pipelines. Section 16 of

PNGRB Act reads as under:

―16. Authorisation- No entity shall-

(a) lay, build, operate or expand any pipeline as a common carrier or contract carrier;

(b) lay, build, operate or expand any city or local natural gas distribution network, without obtaining authorisation under this Act:

Provided that an entity,-

(i) laying, building, operating or expanding any pipeline as common carrier or contract carrier; or

(ii) laying, building, operating or expanding any city or local natural gas distribution network,

immediately before the appointed day shall be deemed to have such authorisation subject to the provisions of this Chapter, but any change in the purpose or usage shall require separate authorisation granted by the Board.‖

(emphasis supplied)

38. Further, Section 2 (d) (B) of the PNGRB Act defines „ authorized

entity‟ as an entity which has been authorized by the Board under

Section 16 of the Act. Thus, making it abundantly clear that an

authorisation can only be given by the Board under Section 16 of the

Act. Section 2 (d) (B) reads as under :

"2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

                  xxxx          xxxx      xxxx        xxxx

              (d)    ― authorised entity‖ means an entity-

              (A)    ...............
              (B)    authorised by the Board under section 16-

                     (i)    to lay, build, operate or expand a
                            common carrier or contract carrier; or

(ii) to lay, build, operate or expand a city or local natural gas distribution network;‖

(emphasis supplied)

39. We are of the opinion that Section 16 is the source of power as it

gives statutory mandate to the Board to issue authorizations. Section 16

also confers monopoly on the Board to issue authorizations. Without

notification of Section 16, Board does not have the power to issue

authorizations, inasmuch as there would be no ban on other entities

from laying, building, operating or expanding CGD Networks.

40. We are further of the view that Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the

PNGRB Act are all procedural Sections in aid of Section 16. In fact,

Sections 17 to 19 lay down the procedure to be adopted by the Board

for inviting applications from entities and selecting the best amongst

them. These Sections do not give the Board the power to grant

authorisation to an entity which has applied to it. This power is

specifically provided under Section 16 of the Act and in absence of

non-notification of the same, the Board cannot issue LOI‟s to any of the

entities selected by it. If the respondents‟ submissions were to be

accepted, it would lead to chaos and would destroy the very object of

the PNGRB Act which is to ensure that entities authorised by the Board

are alone allowed to carry on the business of Natural Gas distribution.

41. The respondent Board‟s submission that it has the power to grant

authorisation under Section 19 of the PNGRB Act and that Section 16

is a superfluous Section particularly in the light of the other provisions

is untenable in law. In our opinion, Section 19 only gives the Board the

power to select an entity from amongst the entities which had applied to

it for seeking authorisation to lay, build, operate or expand a city or

local gas distribution network or pipelines in a specified geographical

area. In fact, the only purpose of Section 19 is to ensure that the Board

does not grant authorisation without giving wide publicity and inviting

applications from all the interested parties to maintain transparency in

the grant of authorisation. This would be clear from Section 19(2),

which states that "the Board may select an entity in an objective and

transparent manner as specified by Regulation for such activities‖.

The transparency contemplated under Section 19(2) has been embodied

in Section 19(1). Section 19 does not deal with the power of the Board

to grant authorisation but lays down one aspect of the Procedure to

grant authorisation. In this regard, one may refer to Section 20(3),

which clearly indicates that Section 19 is a procedural provision.

Section 20(3) reads as follows:

―20. Declaring laying, building, etc., of common carrier or contract carrier and city or local natural gas distribution network-

                   xxxx         xxxx         xxxx         xxxx

              (3)    The Board may, after following the procedure

as specified by regulations under section 19 and sub- sections (1) and (2), by notification -

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(d) authorise an entity to lay, build, operate or expand a city or local natural gas distribution network.‖

(emphasis supplied)

42. Reference to Section 19 in Sections 23 and 48 does not empower

the Board to grant authorisation which only flows from Section 16 of

the PNGRB Act. Section 19 finds reference in other provisions because

applications to be filed subsequent to notification of Section 16 have to

be processed under Section 19. Moreover, punishment under Section

48 of the PNGRB Act would itself not be enough.

43. In our view, the Minister‟s reply in Parliament as well as

Government‟s conduct of laying regulations before Parliament and in

transferring of pending authorisation application to the Board are

irrelevant when the scheme of the Statute and expression used therein

are clear and unambiguous. In fact, the Supreme Court in Kanai Lal

Sur vs. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan reported in AIR 1957 SC 907 has

held as under:

―6........―it must always be borne in mind that the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. If the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the grounds that such hypothetical construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act......‖

44. The Supreme Court in Dadi Jagannadham vs. Jammulu

Ramulu & Ors. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 71 has held as under:

―13...... The Court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result......‖

45. In our opinion, in view of non-notification of Section 16 of the

PNGRB Act, the power of the Board to grant authorisations has not

come into force. Any authorisation given by the Board cannot be

termed as a valid authorisation as Section 16 of the PNGRB Act has not

yet been notified by the Government of India. It would be relevant to

mention here that the Union of India in its affidavit dated August, 2009

has also taken a similar view. The relevant portion of the Union of

India‟s affidavit reads as under:

―6. In view of non-notification of Section 16, it is most respectfully submitted that the view of the Central Govt. is that the Board is not currently empowered to issue authorizations for laying, building, operating or

expanding any pipeline as a common carrier or contract carrier or city or local natural gas distribution network, as clause (d) (B) of Section2 of the Act defines an ― authorized entity‖ inter alia is an entity authorized by the board under Section 16 of the Act. However, there is no impediment from taking preparatory work in this regard and applications can be processed till the stage or issuance of the Letter of Intent.‖

46. As far as the case of IGL is concerned, we have perused the

Board‟s original file wherein IGL‟s application for authorisation was

rejected. We find that neither IGL was ever heard by the Board nor its

application was ever placed before the Board. In fact, the impugned

order was prepared by the Deputy Secretary as well as DOSD(D) and

after being vetted by the Secretary as well as Member (Infrastructure),

the same was approved by the Chairman after effecting two minor

changes. The order dated 19th March, 2009 was finally issued under the

signature of Secretary purporting to be an order passed by the Board. It

seems that the word „Board‟ was added at the end so as to camouflage it

as an order passed by the Board. In any event, as IGL was not heard by

the Board, the impugned decision dated 19th March, 2009 is liable to be

set aside on the sole ground that it violated the principles of natural

justice. The Supreme Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao Vs. A.P.

State Road Transport Corpn. reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 has held as

under:-

―31. The second objection is that while the Act and the Rules framed thereunder impose a duty on the State Government to give a personal hearing, the procedure prescribed by the Rules impose a duty on the Secretary to hear and the

Chief Minister to decide. This divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. Such a procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear-up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure.‖

47. We are of the view that the judgment of Privy Council in Jeffs

Vs. New Zealand Dairy Production (supra) is inapplicable to the

present case as the statutory provisions are entirely different and the

consequences of the Board‟s decision have a far reaching impact. In

any event, the said Privy Council‟s decision was found irrelevant by the

Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of

India Vs. L.K. Ratna & Ors. reported in (1986) 4 SCC 537 wherein it

has been held as under:-

―2. The appellant is the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (the "Institute"). The Institute was created as a body corporate under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (the "Act"), and its members are Chartered Accountants. The affairs of the Institute are managed by a body known as the Council of the Institute, which is headed by a President and a Vice-President below him. There are three Standing Committees of the Council, and one of them is the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee consists of the President and the Vice- President ex-officio of the Council, two members elected by the Committee from its members and a third member nominated by the Central Government. Chapter V of the Act contains

provisions dealing with cases of misconduct of members of the Institute. Section 21 provides for conducting enquiries relating to such misconduct and the penalties which may be imposed, and Section 22A provides for an appeal by a member against the imposition of a penalty. As the sections are material, they may be set forth :

21. Procedure in inquiries relating to misconduct of members of Institute.-(1) Where on receipt of information by, or of a complaint made to it, the Council is prima facie of opinion that any member of the Institute has been guilty of any professional or other misconduct, the Council shall refer the case to the Disciplinary Committee, and the Disciplinary Committee shall thereupon hold such inquiry and in such manner as may be prescribed, and shall report the result of its inquiry to the Council.

(2) If on receipt of such report the Council finds that the member of the Institute is not guilty of any professional or other misconduct, it shall record its finding accordingly and direct that the proceedings shall be filed or the complaint shall be dismissed, as the case may be.

(3) If on receipt of such report the Council finds that the member of the Institute is guilty of any professional or other misconduct, it shall record a finding accordingly and shall proceed in the manner laid down in the succeeding sub- sections.

(4) Where the finding is that a member of the Institute has been guilty of a professional misconduct specified in the First Schedule, the Council shall afford to the member an opportunity of being heard before orders are passed against him on the case, and may thereafter make any of the following orders, namely :.....

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

13. At this point it is necessary to advert to the fundamental character of the power conferred on the Council. The Council is empowered to find a member guilty of misconduct. The penalty which follows is so harsh that it may result in his

removal from the Register of Members for a substantial number of years. The removal of his name from the Register deprives him of the right to a certificate of practice. As is clear from Section 6(1) of the Act, he cannot practice without such certificate. In the circumstances there is every reason to presume in favour of an opportunity to the member of being heard by the Council before it proceeds to pronounce upon his guilt. As we have seen, the finding by the Council operates with finality in the proceeding, and it constitutes the foundation for the penalty imposed by the Council on him. We consider it significant that the power to find and record whether a member is guilty of misconduct has been specifically entrusted by the Act to the entire Council itself and not to a few of its members who constitute the Disciplinary Committee. It is the character and complexion of the proceeding considered in conjunction with the structure of power constituted by the Act which leads us to the conclusion that the member is entitled to a hearing by the Council before it can find him guilty. Upon the approach which has found favour with us, we find no relevance in James Edward Jeffs and Ors. v. New Zealand Dairy Production and Marketing Board and Ors.

[1967] 1 AC 551 cited on behalf of the appellant. The Court made observations there of a general nature and indicated the circumstances when evidence could be recorded and submissions of the parties heard by a person other than the decision making authority. Those observations can have no play in a power structure such as the one before us.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

19. Upon the aforesaid considerations, we are of definite opinion that a member accused of misconduct is entitled to a hearing by the Council when, on receipt of the report of the Disciplinary Committee, it proceeds to find whether he is or is not guilty. The High Court is, therefore, right in the view on this point.‖

(emphasis supplied)

48. Notings on the file after the draft order had been prepared clearly

shows as to how IGL‟s authorisation application was dealt with. The

relevant portion of the draft order and the notings thereon are

reproduced hereinbelow :

―Subject: Speaking Order in the case for processing of application of Indraprastha Gas Limitd for the Ghaziabad CGD Network under regulation 18(1)

Background:

M/s Indraprastha Gas Limited had submitted its application under regulation 18(1) dated 11th November, 2008 for Ghaziabad City CGD Network. The committee has examined the same under the provisions of regulation 18(1) for ―Entity not authorized by the Central Government for laying, building, operating or expanding CGD network before appointed day‖.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

9. M/s IGL has attended the meeting on 4th March, 2009 at PNGRB office and before submission of their claim on the application their counsel raised certain issues on behalf of m/s IGL.

i. The Counsel of M/s IGL objected on the authority of the committee to conduct such hearing, as contested by him, nobody other than the Board members are authorized to hold such a hearing. Their contention was overruled by Member (I) stating that the committee is a duly authorized committee under the provisions of PNGRB Act, 2006 and that the process underway is not a process of dispute settlement but to examine the application under the regulation 18(1) and also clarified that under the PNGRB Act clause 58 which ―empowers the Board to delegate any members or officers of the Board for conduction of meetings by way of issue of a general order in writing‖.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

After the complete analaysis of the subject matter and taking a holistic approach, Board before deciding has taken in to account the following points. are suggested

√ The UPSIDC permission was granted in year 2005 to M/s. IGL for development of CGD network in Ghaziabad City. No physical progress was achieved by M/s. IGL and only 4% of financial commitment was achieved w.r.t. to its DFR till the appointed day.

√ PNGRB feels that even in absence of required network connectivity M/s. IGL could have started distribution of CNG by way of setting up Daughter Booster stations in the Oil Marketing Companies Retail Outlets with supply logistics maintained through mobile cascades Ex-Delhi.

√ The Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing entities to lay built operate or expand local or city gas distribution network) Regulations 2008 has been notified on 19th March, 2008 and as per the provisions contained under regulation18(1) of the said regulations, any entity engaged in the City Gas Distribution projects needs to apply immediately to the PNGRB.

√ However M/s. IGL has neither submitted a formal application for Ghaziabad City CGD Network immediately nor even during the public consultation process of 30 days mentioned above for the reasons best known to them. As a matter of fact the application under 18(1) for Ghaziabad CGD Network was submitted by M/s IGL on 11th November, 2008 almost 8 months after notification of regulations.

√ The above creates a room of doubt about the sincerity & intensions of M/s IGL for Ghaziabad CGD Network.

The were the The Bench Heard patiently the submissions made by M/s IGL heard committe and was of the opinion that sufficient opportunity was given to M/s IGL. However M/s IGL could not convincingly e substantiate their claim on Ghaziabad CGD Network under regulation 18(1). And the Board has decided to reject the application of M/s IGL as per provisions of regulation 18(8).

The speaking order in this case is attached for approval from competent authority.

             sd/- 9/3/9                                sd/- 9/3
           Noor Khan                                Deepak Sawant
           Deputy Director (NK)                       DOSD(D)


                  The order should be seen from legal
                  angle also.

                  sd/- 13/3
           Secretary, PNGRB

Member (I) The findings of the committee have been casted in the speaking order placed in the file.

Chairman in exercise of the powers delegated

by the Board, may approve the same before it is issued under the signature of Secy. (PNGRB).

sd/- 17/3 Chairperson Order may issue as per the modified draft placed below.

sd/- 18/3/09 Member (I) I have made minor changes in 8(a) and added last sentence at (12). May like to see for incorporation.

sd/-18/3 Secy. May kindly see the two changes in the letter especially the use of the term ‗Board' in the last line.

sd/- 18/3 Chairman Last line may be retained. Rest OK.

sd/- 19/3 Secy. As discussed the last line has been slightly modified keeping in view suggestion of Member (I) also. This was also discussed with OSD(B).

Order in letter format may now issue.

sd/- 19/3 Chairman.

Sir, letter issued through fax/courier

sd/-19/3 Member(I)

sd/- 20/3 Secy.

DOSD(D)‖

(emphasis supplied)

49. On a perusal of the PNGRB Act, we find that it provides for

collegiate decision making by a multi-member Board after following

the principles of natural justice. While dealing with an application for

grant of authorisation, several aspects including, legal, infrastructural,

commercial, technical etc. have to be considered. Consequently,

PNGRB Act mandates that the Board shall comprise persons of

eminence in the fields of petroleum and natural gas industry,

management, finance, law, administration or consumer affairs. In this

connection, we may refer to following provisions of PNGRB Act:

―2. Definitions-

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(f) "Board" means the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board established under sub-section (1) of section 3

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

3. Establishment and incorporation of the Board -

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(3) The Board shall consist of a Chairperson, a Member (Legal) and three other members to be appointed by the Central Government.

4. Qualifications for appointment of Chairperson and other members - (1) The Central Government shall appoint the Chairperson and other members of the Board from amongst persons of eminence in the fields of petroleum and natural gas industry, management, finance, law, administration or consumer affairs:

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

―11. Functions of the Board.-The Board shall--

(c) authorise entities to--

(i) lay, build, operate or expand a common carrier or contract carrier;

(ii) lay, build, operate or expand city or local natural gas distribution network;

            xxxx           xxxx        xxxx         xxxx




        13. Procedure of the Board-

            xxxx           xxxx          xxxx          xxxx

(3) The Board shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the places at which it shall conduct its business.‖

(emphasis supplied)

50. In fact, from the official noting on the IGL‟s authorisation file it

is apparent that by an indirect method of delegation, a collective

decision making process by the Board has been reduced to a single

man‟s decision, namely, the Chairman. In our opinion, the delegation

of essential and core functions to the Chairman is clearly contrary to the

letter and spirit of PNGRB Act which requires that „Board‟ must grant

or reject the authorisation. Delegating this essential power to one

member of the Board is not contemplated by the PNGRB Act.

51. Even Sections 6 and 8(3) of PNGRB Act relied upon by the

Board‟s learned senior counsel gives Chairman only the power of

general superintendence and a casting vote. The PNGRB Act neither

provides nor contemplates that all the powers and jurisdiction of five

members of the Board would be concentrated in the hands of the

Chairman alone - as has been done in the present case. In our view, the

Chairman of the Board could not have delegated onto himself the core

and essential function of the Board thereby rendering rest of the Board

Members redundant in the decision making process. The Minutes of

the 12th Board Meeting held on 11th September, 2008 also do not

indicate any ground to warrant delegation of such an essential function

relating to the grant of authorisation in the hands of one person.

52. In any event, the impugned order dated 19 th March, 2009 is

contrary to the Board‟s resolution as the said resolution only

empowered the Chairman for taking appropriate decision on the

application for grant of authorisation but in the present instance, the

Chairman did not even give a personal hearing to the IGL.

53. We are further of the view that the Chairman who was admittedly

himself a delegatee, could not have further sub-delegated his power to

someone else - as he did in the present case by delegating his powers to

the Secretary and the Member (Infrastructure). Section 58 of the

PNGRB Act only envisages delegation of powers by the Board to a

member or official of the Board by general or special order in writing.

There is no scope for a delegatee to sub-delegate that power. In this

connection, we may refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered

in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Retired

Officers Association & Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 321. The

relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :-

―28. Contention of Mr. Patwalia that the Chairman of the Corporation having power even to fix the cut off dates for different purposes, the jurisdiction exercised by him to do so for payment of gratuity, which has a direct nexus with the revised pay of scale cannot be accepted. Once he fixes a cut off date for the purpose of giving effect to the agreement vis-à-vis the payment of arrears in terms thereof, he cannot exercise further

jurisdiction in respect of a matter which is not controlled by Chapter IV but is controlled by other provisions of statutes and parliamentary Acts governing the field. A delegatee must exercise its powers within the four corners of the statute. The power of a sub-delegatee is more restricted. A delegatee cannot act in violation of a statute. A sub- delegatee cannot exercise any power which is not meant to be conferred upon him by reason of statutory provisions. It must conform not only to the provisions of the regulations and the Act but also other parliamentary Acts. [See Kurmanchal Inst. of Degree and Diploma and Ors. v. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University : (2007) 6 SCC 35, Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala : (2006) 4 SCC 327, Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.(3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group: (2006) 3 SCC 434, State of Kerala v. Unni: (2007) 2 SCC 365, State of Orissa v. Chakobhai Ghelabhai and Co. : AIR 1961 SC 284 and Shroff and Co. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay : 1989 Supp (1) SCC 347.]‖

54. As far as the allegations against Mr. B.S. Negi are concerned, we

are of the view that PNGRB Act and Rules and Regulations framed

thereunder provide a specific procedure for holding an enquiry against a

member of the Board. Moreover, as we find that the Ministry of

Petroleum and Natural Gas is already examining the response of the

Board, we refrain ourselves from commenting further except to direct

the said Ministry to take an appropriate decision with regard to the

allegations against Mr. B.S. Negi in accordance with law within a

period of eight weeks‟ from today.

55. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, both the writ petitions

being WP(C) Nos. 8415/2009 and 9022/2009 are allowed, but without

any order as to costs. In view of non-notification of Section 16 of