The court affirmed that public notices regulating LNG stations do not impinge on the exclusivity rights of a gas distributor for industrial consumers with requirements up to 50,000 SCMD.

JUDGMENT

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

2. The Petitioner - Gujarat Gas Limited has filed the present petition challenging the notices issued by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (hereinafter, `PNGRB') dated 2nd June, 2020 and 23rd July, 2020.

3. The grievance of the Petitioner, as recorded in the previous order dated 10th February, 2021, is that the Petitioner has exclusive rights for running the `city or local natural gas distribution network' in the city of Rajkot. According to the Petitioner, since the term `natural gas' is defined under Section 2 (za) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006, (hereinafter, `Act'), the Petitioner would have exclusivity qua all forms of natural gas as stipulated in the said provision.

4. The submission of Mr. Parag Tripathi, ld. Senior Counsel, is that the two public notices impinge upon the exclusivity which the Petitioner enjoys for the entire economic life, which would be approximately 25 years, coupled with any renewal(s) contemplated under the regulations.

5. On the last occasion, notice was issued to the Respondents. According to Mr. Tripathi, ld. Senior Counsel, all the Respondents were served. However, there is no appearance for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. Mr. Gourabh Banerjee, ld. Senior Counsel appears for PNGRB. His submission is that the two public notices do not impinge upon the rights of the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever. According to PNGRB, the public notices are restricted to the establishment and operation of Liquefied Natural Gas Stations (hereinafter, `LNG Stations') for dispensing natural gas in liquid state only to the transport sector and not CNG or LCNG, which is covered in the definition of `natural gas'. Ld. Senior counsel further submits that in any event, whenever any consumer, including an industrial consumer, has a requirement of upto 50,000 SCMD, the supply to such a consumer can only be made after authorization from the Petitioner and no third party can supply the same. Reference is made to letter dated 12th January, 2021, which reflects the understanding of the Petitioner in this regard.

7. Heard ld. Senior Counsels for the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. Under the impugned public notices, licenses are to be issued by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (hereinafter `PESO'), which has not entered appearance. However, the stand of the Petitioner and PNGRB is clearly contained in the public notices, as also in the letter dated 12th January, 2021. The relevant extract of letter dated 12th January, 2021 is set out hereinbelow:

"....

5) In fact the PNGRB has vide Public Notice No: PNGRB/AUTH/1-CGD (02)/2020 dated 23.07.2020 ("2020 July Clarification"), clarified that only an LNG Station which dispenses LNG in liquid state only to the transport sector is being permitted to be installed vide Public Notice No: PNGRB/AUTH/1-CGD (02)/2020 dated 02.06.2020 ("2020 June Notice"). The 2020 June Notice had stipulated that since only LNG Station dispenses natural gas in liquid form to vehicles without any pressure or conversion into gas, it is not covered in the scope of "CNG Station". Thus, only LNG Stations can be installed by an entity not being the authorised entity for the geographical area and even then such entity will have to comply with the provisions of the PNGRB Act and other applicable regulations including the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Technical Standards and Specifications including Safety Standards for Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities) Regulations, 2018 ("T4S Regulations"). A copy of the 2020 July Clarification and 2020 June Notice, is provided as Annexure C for reference.

6) Thus, und