The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of the petitioner's compliance with the regulatory conditions and the potential impact of de-commissioning the pipeline on third-party interests.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 31st March, 2014 of the respondent No. 2 Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) of imposing penalty of Rupees One Crore on the petitioner under Section 28 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 (PNGRB Act) with an additional penalty of Rupees Two Lakhs for everyday during which the failure continued/continues after contravention of the first direction, for laying and operating a pipeline for transportation of Coal Bed Methane (CBM) gas without prior permission under Section 16 of the PNGRB Act. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner that the pipelines laid and being operated by it are not a common carrier of gas within the meaning of the PNGRB Act and it was thus not required to take any such permission.

2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and vide order on the application of the petitioner for interim relief it was directed that the respondent No. 2 PNGRB shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order dated 31st March, 2014. It was however clarified that though the petitioner shall be entitled to continue supplying gas through the existing pipeline, no incremental activity will be undertaken by the petitioner without appropriate permission for the same from this Court. The petitioner was also directed to deposit a sum of Rupees Fifty Lakhs with the Registrar General of this Court. The said sum of Rupees Fifty Lakhs has been deposited by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner filed CM No. 8446/2014 seeking permission for replacing its old pipelines particularly connecting Well Nos. W-40 to W-18, W-16 to W-14 and W-25 to Group Gathering Station and to lay fresh pipeline to supply CBM gas to Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), Baba Structures Ltd. and Baba Strips & Tubes Ltd. The said application was allowed vide detailed order dated 1st August, 2014 and permission, as sought, was given to the petitioner for replacing the existing pipelines and for laying fresh pipelines on the condition, (i) that the petitioner while doing so, shall comply with Regulation 7 of the PNGRB (Technical Standards and Specifications including Safety Standards for Natural Gas Pipelines) Regulations, 2009, and, (ii) that the petitioner, before commissioning the replaced and new pipelines, shall have the same inspected in accordance with the said Regulation 7. The respondent No. 2 PNGRB was also directed to carry out the said inspection within two weeks of the notice given by the petitioner therefor.

4. The petitioner, in or about beginning of September, 2014 filed CM No. 14443/2014 informing that it had, in accordance with the aforesaid direction, laid down the pipeline from Well No. 40 to Well No. 18 and had also got the said pipeline inspected from M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, a 100% subsidiary of M/s Inspectorate International Limited which had been acquired by M/s Bureau Veritas which is an empanelled third party inspection agency with the respondent No. 2 PNGRB and that the said agency had certified that the petitioner had fully complied with Regulation 7 supra and therefore seeking dispensation with the inspection by the respondent No. 2 PNGRB in terms of the order dated 1st August, 2014 supra.

5. The aforesaid application came up before us on 22nd September, 2014, when the counsel for the respondent No. 2 PNGRB handed over a copy of the letter dated 18th September, 2014 of the respondent No. 2 PNGRB to the petitioner with respect to pipeline connecting W-40 to W-18 and W-16 to W-14 and stating that a pipeline connecting the Gas Wells to the Gas Gathering Station for treatment / processing was outside the purview of PNGRB and stated that in terms thereof, no direction, as sought by the petitioner in the application, was necessary. Accordingly, CM No. 14443/2014 was disposed of.

6. CM No. 1440/2015 has been filed by the petitioner in or about January,