Orders imposing injunctions must contain sufficient reasoning, addressing essential elements such as prima facie case and balance of convenience, as per the Act's requirements.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Gujarat Gas Limited, challenging the impugned order dated 26th August, 2020 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereinafter "APTEL").

3. APTEL, vide the impugned order, has stayed the proceedings before the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (hereinafter "PNGRB") and has also stayed the impugned order, dated 21st July, 2020 passed by PNGRB. By the impugned order a temporary injunction was passed against Respondent No. 3 - GAIL (India) Limited (hereinafter "GAIL"), directing said party to not supply gas to any customer having requirement of natural gas upto 50,000 SCMD within the geographical area of Dahej-Vagra Taluka. The order of the PNGRB dated 21st July 2020 is extracted below is as under:

"The respondent is directed not to supply the gas from its high pressure common carrier natural gas pipeline to any customer having requirement of natural gas up to 50,000 SCMD within the Geographical Area of Dahej-Vagra Taluka in terms of Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD AUTHORIZATION REGULATIONS , 2008...."

4. The said order of the PNGRB was challenged before APTEL by GAIL on various grounds. A perusal of the impugned order dated 26th August, 2020, shows that APTEL had stayed the temporary injunction order passed by PNGRB, as well as the proceedings before PNGRB, primarily on two counts. First, that the Member (Legal) was not part of the quorum of PNGRB, which passed the order of temporary injunction against GAIL. Second, the impugned order was cryptic in nature and did not have any discussion as to the three essential ingredients to be satisfied for temporary injunction. APTEL has admitted the appeal before it and has directed the parties to complete the pleadings, while staying the injunction order passed by the PNGRB.

5. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, ld. Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the PNGRB's order was completely justified, inasmuch as the PNGRB is competent to pass such an order in exercise of its powers under Section 21 (3) read with Sections 25 and 26 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 (hereinafter "the Act"). It is only in respect of disputes which are raised under Section 24 of the Act, that the Member (Legal) would be required to be part of the quorum of the PNGRB and not in respect of other provisions, under the Act. He further submits that the injunction order was also justified, inasmuch as GAIL's exclusivity in the geographical area of Dahej-Vagra Taluka was being violated. Since, the Petitioner was a successful bidder, it enjoyed exclusive legal right under the Act to operate in the geographical area of Dahej-Vagra Taluka, which was being violated by GAIL.

6. Considering these facts, it is submitted by Mr. Srinivasan, ld. Senior counsel, that the impugned order ought not to be interfered with. Reliance is placed by the ld. Senior counsel on another order of APTEL dated 21st October, 2020, titled M/s Maharashtra Natural Gas Limited v. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board, passed in an un-connected matter where APTEL has itself, permitted PNGRB to go ahead and conduct its proceedings despite the absence of Member (Legal).

7. On the other hand, Mr. Chetan Sharma, ld. ASG appearing for GAIL and submits that first, the order passed by the PNGRB has rightly been held by APTEL to be cryptic in nature as the merits of the issues have not been dealt with and no reasons have been given. Second, GAIL has a strong case on merits and was given permission