Delhi High Court
Gail (India) Ltd. vs Petroleum And Natural Gas ... on 11 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2956/2016 & CM No.12360/2016
GAIL (INDIA) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Parag P. Tripathi, Mr.Ramji
Srinivasan, Sr.Advocates with Ms.Neelima
Tripathi, Mr.Shikhar Khare & Ms.D.D. Majumdar,
Advocates
Versus
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL
GAS REGULATORY BOARD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.Saurab
Agrawal, Ms.Astha Gaur, Advs. for PNGRB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
11.04.2017
1. This petition has been filed challenging the Final Initial Unit Natural
Gas Pipeline Tariff Order dated 16.3.2016 (for short 'Impugned Final Tariff
Order') issued by the respondent/Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory
Board (PNGRB) in exercise of the powers conferred under PNGRB
(Determination of Natural Gas Pipeline Tariff) Regulations, 2008 for the
K.G. Basin Natural Gas Pipeline Network.
2. Though the petition was initially listed before the Single Bench, the
same has been transferred to this Bench in view of the fact that W.P.(C)
No.1189/2016 filed by the petitioner challenging the PNGRB
(Determination of Natural Gas Pipeline Tariff) Regulations, 2008 is pending
before this Bench.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
4. The impugned Tariff Order has been challenged primarily on the
ground that PNGRB has no power and jurisdiction to fix tariff to be charged
by the petitioner from its customers in the light of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in PNGRB vs. IGL; (2015) 9 SCC 209.
5. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. (C) No. 1189/2016 challenging
the vires of (i) Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing
Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas
Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Authorizing Regulations, 2008'). (ii) PNGRB (Determination of Natural
Gas Pipeline Tariff) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Determination of Tariff Regulations, 2008') and (iii) PNGRB (Guiding
Principles for Declaring or Authorising Natural Gas Pipeline as Common
Carrier or Contract Carrier) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as
'Declaring as Common Carrier/Contract Carrier Regulations, 2009').
6. It is contended in the said petition inter alia that in the light of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in PNGRB vs. IGL (supra) the impugned
Regulations are liable to be declared ultra vires the PNGRB Act.
7. The said writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.1189/2016 has been dismissed
today by separate order holding that the ratio laid down in PNGRB vs. IGL
(supra) has no application to the facts of the case.
8. It is also relevant to note that against the impugned final Tariff Order
a statutory appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.
Notwithstanding the availability of the alternative remedy, the petitioner has
chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that W.P.(C)
No.1189/2016 challenging the vires of the Regulations under which the
impugned Tariff Order was made, is pending before this Court.
9. Now that W.P.(C) No.1189/2016 has been dismissed and an
alternative remedy of statutory appeal is available to the petitioner, we do
not find any justifiable reason to entertain this writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
11. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to avail the alternative
remedy of statutory appeal following due process of law.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JAYANT NATH, J.
APRIL 11, 2017
kks
