JUDGMENT

A. PRELUDE

1. The writ petitioner assails the validity of an order dated 09 June 2022^{1[Impugned Order]} passed by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board^{2[the Board]} . The aforesaid order passed on a petition preferred by the third respondent holds that the petitioner no.1 is not in readiness to supply natural gas through interconnected pipelines and that consequently, the said respondent cannot be compelled to source natural gas from the petitioner no. 1. A prayer is additionally made for the Court declaring that the petitioner no. 1, being the Authorized Entity^3[AE] for the City or Local Natural Gas Distribution^4[CGD] for the Geographical Area^5[GA] in question, it alone is authorised to supply, market and distribute natural gas including in its liquid state to consumers located in the said authorised area.

2. The writ petition raises a significant question concerning the nature of exclusivity that can be claimed by an AE to supply natural gas in all its forms within the GA, the obligations which stand placed upon the said AE and the circumstances in which the facility of exclusivity which stands conferred could be revoked. Of equal importance are the issues relating to the policy framework as set up by the Board aimed at according an impetus to natural gas as a viable and sustainable alternative fuel source, the nascent and developing market for natural gas, the need to incentivise entities and attract investments coupled with the principal objective of increasing the share of natural gas in India's energy basket and protecting the interests of the consumers. The significance of these and other issues which arise shall come to the fore as the narrative progresses.

3. The dispute arises with respect to the GA of Alappuzha, Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram Districts^6[AKT] and in respect of which the petitioner no.1 admittedly is the AE in terms of the authorisation granted to it by the Board on 29 March 2019. The Board stands constituted in terms of the provisions of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006^{7[the Act]} . In discharge of its obligations and for the purposes of regulating the various functions to be discharged by it, the Board has proceeded to frame the PNGRB (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008^{8[the Authorization Regulations]} , the PNGRB (Exclusivity for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008^{9[the Exclusivity Regulations]} , the PNGRB (Access Code for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2020^{10[the Access Code Regulations]} and the PNGRB (Guiding Principles for Declaring City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks as Common Carrier or Contract Carrier) Regulations, 2020^{11[the Guiding Regulations]} . The entire controversy which stands raised in the present writ petition revolves around the meaning to be ascribed to the phrase "City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Network"^{12[CGD Network]} as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act together with Regulations 2(1)(i) and 3 of the Authorization Regulations and the expression "piped natural gas" as appearing therein.

B. ESSENTIAL FACTS

4. Before proceeding to notice the legal questions wh