IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the PNGRB Act, entities must obtain authorization from the Board to lay, build, and operate pipelines, and conflicting claims regarding authorization need to be considered and decided.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

1. The present appeal challenges the judgment dated 08th February, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 15285/2023. Vide the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has granted a stay, thereby restraining the appellant herein from proceeding further with laying down of the pipeline from Ennore Port to Manali Industrial Area, Chennai, Tamil Nadu during the pendency of the writ petition.

2. Pursuant to a bidding process, respondent no.3-IMC Limited was authorized on 18th December, 2015 by respondent no.1, i.e., Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board ("PNGRB") to lay, build and operate the Ennore Port-Manali Industrial Area petroleum products pipeline.

3. The appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ("IOCL") is a Public Sector Undertaking ("PSU"). The appellant had also participated in the aforesaid bid process of PNGRB, but was unsuccessful. However, subsequently the appellant-IOCL started laying a pipeline at Ennore Port, grass root terminal at Vallur (Chennai). The said pipeline is along the very same route on which the respondent no. 3-IMC Limited has been authorized to lay, build and operate the pipeline. The said work was started by the appellant on 22nd August, 2023 and as on date, the appellant is stated to have constructed 10 Kms of the pipeline, which as per the appellant is a captive pipeline for its self use.

4. Since the appellant-IOCL started constructing the pipeline along the very same route on which respondent no.3-IMC Limited had been authorized to lay, build and operate the pipeline, the respondent no.3 approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 15285/2023.

5. When the said petition was listed for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 08th February, 2024, allowed the application, being CM No. 7081/2024 filed on behalf of respondent no.3-IMC Limited, thereby restraining the appellant-IOCL from proceeding further with the laying down of the pipeline from Ennore Port to Manali Industrial Area, during the pendency of the writ petition. Against the said judgment dated 08th February, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following contentions:

6.1. The stay against the appellant has a cascading effect on its firm commitments and has effectively jeopardized the project of the appellant costing approximately Rs. 2,577 Crores (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Seven Crores).

6.2. The appellant, which is a PSU, has already spent about Rs. 996 Crores. Thus, irreparable harm/loss would be caused to the appellant if the impugned judgment is not stayed during the pendency of the present appeal. Every day the work stays stagnant, the loss is mounting for the appellant.

6.3. The laying of the pipeline undertaken by the appellant-IOCL, are for the exclusive use of IOCL and are being laid for transportation of its own petroleum products between its own facilities.

6.4. The pipelines are being laid as part of the captive system of IOCL and are neither dedicated pipelines, which cater to a single consumer nor are they common/contract carrier lines. Since the said pipelines do not fall within the ambit of the definition of common/contract carrier, provisions of Section 16(a) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 ("PNGRB Act"), do not apply.

6.5. No provision of the PNGRB Act or its congruent Regulations, require IOCL to take authorization for such pipelines. For captive/self use pipelines, meant only for the own use of IOCL, no authorization is required from the PNGRB. The captive/self use pipelines of the appellant are outside the purview of the PNGRB Act.

6.6. Respondent no.3-IMC Limited has not laid even a single inch of pipeline in more than eight years from the date of its authorization on 18th December, 2015. Therefore, respondent no.3-IMC Limited could not possibly suffer any irreparable l