The appointed day for the purpose of sections 2(c) and 16 of the 2006 Act is 01.10.2007 as defined in the Act and not 15.07.2010 as contended by the petitioner.

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

1. In Civil Writ Petition No. 26501 of 2015, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board, Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Haryana and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. In Civil Writ Petition No. 14490 of 2016, the respondents are the Union of India and the Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board. Both the writ petitions are inter-connected and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order and judgment.

2. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) is ultra vires the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2006 Act’) as it defines the appointed day to mean 01.10.2007 and not 15.07.2010. A writ of mandamus is accordingly sought directing respondent No.2 to treat the appointed day as 15.07.2010 while dealing with the petitioner’s application under Regulation 18 of the said Regulations for laying and operating a city gas distribution network for the geographical area of Rohtak. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 30.05.2016 passed by respondent No.2 dismissing its application.

3. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of an appeal. Mr. K.K.Rai, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner confines its challenge only to a question of law viz. whether the appointed day is 15.07.2007 as contended by the petitioner or 01.10.2007 as contended by the respondents. He conceded that if the appointed day is 01.10.2007 as contended by the respondents, the petitioner would not be eligible on merits in any event. We accordingly entertained the writ petition. He submitted that it is in the interest not only of the petitioner but several other parties to have the issue as to the appointed day decided finally.

The judgment was reserved on 05.02.2018. The written submissions were filed sometime after 15.02.2018 by the petitioners. In paragraph-19, it is incorrectly stated that it was agreed by the parties that this Court would decide the vires of Regulations 2(1)(b) only and would relegate the matter to the Appellate Tribunal with respect to the impugned orders for the remaining submissions if the need so arose. It was infact stated that if the issue regarding vires of Regulations 2(1)(b) was decided against the petitioner, nothing would survive for consideration and that only if the issue was held in favour of the petitioner, would it be necessary for the Tribunal to decide the issue on-merits. This was in view of the fact that the petitioners had expressly agreed that if the appointed day is 01.10.2007, they would not be eligible.

Despite the same we would leave it open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Tribunal but only in respect of the submission that even assuming that the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria, it would be open to the Tribunal to grant the petitioner authorization in view of the word “may” used in Regulation 18. The petitioner contends that the mere failure to meet the eligibility criteria is not an absolute bar to the grant of authorization.

4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the appointed day for the purpose of sections 2(c) and 16 of the 2006 Act is 01.10.2007 as contended by the petitioner or 15.07.2010 as contended by the respondents. If it is 15.07.2010, Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Regulations which defines the appointed day to mean 01.10.2007 is ultra virus.

5. We have upheld the validity of Regulation 2(1)(b) as it is in consonance with the Act. The plain language of the Act expressly defines th