SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Mahanagar Gas Limited - Appellant
Versus
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board - Respondent
W.P.(C) 16628 of 2022
Decided On : 13-12-2022




The judgment emphasizes the necessity of resolving disputes involving technical issues within the appellate framework while ensuring parties' rights are not compromised due to conflicts of interest.

Headnote:(A) Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 - Sections 11, 12, and 33 - Petition challenging order directing payment of transportation charges - Appellee directed to pay transportation charges as per tariff order from 1st January 2014 - Appealable order under PNGRB Act with conditions for penalty deposit - Stay of proceedings due to conflict of interest regarding technical member. (Paras 4, 5, 6, and 30)

(B) Administrative Law - Appellate jurisdiction - The merit of disputes involving technical issues is to be resolved before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, but proceedings are hindered by conflicts of interest leading to delays in hearing. (Paras 9-11)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involves payments owed between multiple gas companies related to an order from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board requiring payment of transportation charges. ONGC claims fees from GAIL related to pending recoveries from MGL referred to the Board.

Findings of Court:
The court recognizes the complexities surrounding the technical issues in the gas transportation sector and the petition's challenge to the Board's order. The petitioner must deposit a specified amount with GAIL to avoid coercive recovery actions.

Issues: The court addresses the conflict of interest in APTEL regarding technical members and the merits of the tariff charges imposed on MGL.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determines that despite the technical complexity and the ongoing conflict situation affecting APTEL's processes, it's paramount to ensure that effective remedies are available to parties aggrieved.

Result: The petitioner must deposit ₹50 crores with GAIL, with further hearings scheduled.

Table of Content
1. court's procedural orders in hearings. (Para 2 , 3)
2. dispute over transportation charges and regulatory order. (Para 4 , 5)
3. appeal process under pngrb act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. conflict of interest resolution in tribunal. (Para 9)
5. recommendations for technical member appointments. (Para 10)
6. financial obligations and interim orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL.52346/2022 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 16628/2022 & CM APPL.52345/2022

3. This petition raises two issues, one on merits and one on the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereinafter `APTEL').

4. The present dispute is between the Mahanagar Gas Limited (`MGL'), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (`ONGC') and GAIL. It is the stand of ONGC that monies are owed to it from GAIL, which have not been paid due to pending recoveries between the GAIL and MGL. The matter was referred to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (hereinafter `PNGRB') under 11 and 12 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 (hereinafter `PNGRB Act') and the impugned order dated 30th September, 2022 has been passed.

5. In the said order the PNGRB, directed payment of transportation charges as per the tariff order dated 30th December, 2013 with effect from 1st January, 2014. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

    "In view of the above facts, circumstances, and deliberations, we hereby direct the Complainant/MGL to pay the transportation charges as per the transportation tariff fixed by PNGRB for UTNGPL vide Tariff Order dated 30.12.2013 for the period from 1st January 2014 onwards, which shall be paid within two months of passing of this Order, failing which interest shall be paid by MGL at interest rate mentioned in the Gas Sales and Transportation Contract.

    No order as to costs

    All the issues are answered accordingly.

    The copy of this order be sent to the Hon'b1e APTEL."

6. In terms of the Section 33 of the PNGRB Act, the above order is appealable before the APTEL. Section 33 of the PNGRB Act reads as:

    "33. Appeals to Appellate Tribunal:

    (1) Any person aggrieved by an order or decision made by the Board under this Act may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal: Provided that any person preferring an appeal against an order or decision of the Board levying any penalty shall, while filing the appeal, deposit the amount of such penalty: Provided further that where in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that deposit of such penalty would cause undue hardship to such person, it may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realisation of penalty.

    (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the direction or order of decision made by the Board is received by the aggrieved person and it shall be in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:

    Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

    (3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.

    (4) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the parties to the appeal and to the Board.

    (5) The appeal filed under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made by it todispose of the appeal finally within ninety days from the date of receipt of appeal: Provided that where any such appeal could not be disposed of within the said period of n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top