Order: In the matter of Naveriya Gas Pvt. Ltd. v. Gas Authority India Ltd.

- 1 -

Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board New Delhi

Case No.: Legal/27/2020

In the matter of:

Naveriya Gas Private Limited

A-513 Sidhhi Vinayak Business Tower Behind SP Office, Off SG Highway, Makraba, Ahmedabad-388015

Represented Through

Sh. Patel Sandeep, Director ……Complainant Versus

Gas Authority India Limited

GAIL Bhawan, 16 Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066 Represented through

Sh. Ranjan Kumar, Chief Zonal General Manger, Bhopal Zonal Office ……Respondent

CORAM: Gajendra Singh A.K. Tiwari A.K. Pande (Member-I) (Member-II) Member (Legal)

ORDER

27.06.2022

1. By this order we will dispose of the present Complaint filed under Section 11, 12, and 25 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 ( 'hereinafter referred to as the Act') read with the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Conduct of Business, Receiving and Investigation of Complaints) Regulations, 2007

('hereinafter referred to as CoB Regulations') by Naveriya Gas Private Limited

('hereinafter referred to as Complainant') against the Gas Authority India Limited

('hereinafter referred to as Respondent'), for restraining and preventing from infringing the rights vested with the Complainant to supply the gas to the customers having the requirement of natural gas up to 50,000 Standard Cubic Meters per day ('hereinafter referred to as SCMD') in the authorized Geographical Area

('hereinafter referred to as GA') of the Complainant i.e. Dhar District (Madhya Pradesh).

2. The present complaint was filed on 29.10.2020 before the Board. However, due to the lack of quorum, the matter was taken for hearing for the first time on 11.05.2022 wherein, the Board granted time for completion of pleadings and re-notifies the matter on 14.06.2022. Subsequently, on 14.06.2022, the Board heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel(s) of the parties and, reserved the judgment.

3. In compliance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ('hereinafter referred to as APTEL') dated 07.07.2021 in Appeal No. 152

- 2 -

of 2020 and other connected matters thereto. The Board, on examining the facts of the case and after hearing the arguments of the parties, forms a prima-facie view that the present matter has to be dealt as per the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, as the Respondent has not connected with any new customers in the authorized GA of the Complainant after the was authorization granted by the Board to the Complainant i.e.

07.11.2016.

Brief Facts of the Case

4. The Complainant Naveriya Gas Limited represented through Sh. Patel Sandeep, Director, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at A-513, Sidhhi Vinayak Business Tower, Behind SP Office, off SG Highway, Makraba, Ahmedabad-388015.

5. The Respondent Gas Authority India Limited represented through Sh. Ranjan Kumar, Chief Zonal General Manager, Bhopal Zonal Office, having its registered office at GAIL (India) Limited, GAIL Bhawan, 16 Bhikaji Cama Place, R K Puram, New Delhi-110066 and Zonal Office at 8-Mapple High Street (2^ndFloor), Opp. Aashima Mall, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-462026. The Board vide letter dated 19.04.2010 accepted the Central Government Authorization under Regulation 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand Natural Gas Pipelines) Regulations, 2008 ('hereinafter referred to as NGPL Authorization Regulations') granted to the Complainant for HVJ-GREP-DVPL pipeline passing through Dhar District, M.P.

6. The Board vide letter dated 07.11.2016 granted the authorization for the development of the City or Local Gas Distribution Network ('hereinafter referred to as CGD Network') to the Consortium of Perigon Infratech Ltd., Rajkamal Builders Infrastructures Private Limited and Devraj Builders for the Geographical Area of Dhar District, M.P. as per provision of the PNGRB Act, 2006 read with 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 CGD Authorisation Regulation'). Subsequently, the Board vide letter dated 10.04.2018, as per the mandate under Regulation 10(1) of the CGD Authorization Regulations, transferred the authorization in the favour of the Naveriya Gas Limited on the same terms and conditions of the authorization dated 07.11.2016.

7. It was submitted by the Complainant that in terms of Regulation 3(2)(a) of CGD Authorization Regulations, 2008 the customers having the requirement of natural gas up to 50000 SCMD shall be supplied through a CGD Network and as per Regulation 12 of the CGD Authorization Regulation, the authorized entity is inter-alia entrusted with an exclusivity period from the date of the grant of authorization for the following:

(i) 300 months for laying, building and expansion of the CGD Network; and

- 3 -

(ii) 60 months for exemption of being declared as a common carrier or contract carrier.

8. It is so stated by the Complainant that after the commissioning of the facility of the GA w.e.f. 15.10.2020 for the supply of natural gas through the CGD Network, consequently, it is only the Complainant who has the right to supply the gas to the customers having requirements up to 50,000 SCMD and two of the CGD Industrial Customers i.e. M/s. National Steel Agro Industries Ltd. ('hereinafter referred to as NSAIL') and M/s. RSAL Steel Pvt. Ltd. ('hereinafter referred to as RSPL'), located at Ghatabillod, in Dhar District, having a requirement of the natural gas up to 50,000 SCMD, had expressed their interest to avail the supply of the natural gas from the Complainant's CGD Network, if the Respondent is restrained and prevented by the PNGRB for supplying the gas to the said customers. The Complainant vide letter(s) dated 18.03.2020 and 19.06.2020 intimated to the Board that despite being the readiness of the CGD Network of the Complainant, the Respondent is unauthorizedly supplying the natural gas to the industrial customer in the authorized area of the Complainant.

9. The Complainant by way of this present Complaint is seeking interim & final relief, which is as follows:

Interim Relief

Grant ex parte interim relief pursuant to Regulation 31 of CoB Regulations by restricting and preventing with immediate effect to the Respondent from supplying the gas to NSAIL and RSPL, till the matters attain finality.

Final Relief

Direct the Respondent to stop permanently restrain from supplying the gas to all the customers both domestic and commercial having a requirement up to 50,000 SCMD in the GA authorized to the Complainant, where the Complainant had started supplying the gas in terms of Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD Authorization Regulations.

Contentions of the parties

10. The major contention of the Complainant is that as per Regulation 3(2)(a) of CGD Authorization Regulations, 2008 the customers having the requirement of natural gas up to 50,000 SCMD shall be supplied through a CGD Network, and as per Regulation 12 of the CGD Authorization Regulations, the Complainant is the only authorized entity having an exclusive right to supply the gas to the customers. As stated in the Complaint, two of the CGD Industrial Customers i.e. NSAIL and RSPL had expressed their interest to avail the supply of the natural gas from the CGD Network of the Complainant, therefore, the Respondent shall be restrained and prevented by the

- 4 -

PNGRB from supplying the gas to the said customers. In line with the applicable CGD Authorization Regulations, it is alleged by the Complainant that despite the commissioning of the facility to supply the natural gas through the CGD Network by 15.10.2020, the Respondent is continuously supplying the natural gas to the customers, and, hence, made prayer restraining the Respondent from supplying of the gas.

11. In response to the Complaint, the Respondent vide its reply dated 19.05.2022 and written submission dated 20.06.2022, has raised the contentions, which are as follows:

(i) The Complaint is time-barred, as the Complaint has to be filed under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, within 60 days from the grant of authorization to the Complainant i.e. 07.11.2016, as the Complainant was well aware that the Respondent is supplying the gas to NSAIL & RSPL, before the grant of authorization to the Complainant. Therefore, there is a delay of almost 4 years in filing the Complaint and the Complainant has also not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint;

(ii) The writing of the letter(s) dated 18.03.2020 and 19.06.2020 to the Board regarding the activities carried out by the Respondent is an attempt to bypass the procedure laid down for filing of the Compliant under Section 25 of the Act, before the Board as per the CoB Regulations.

(iii) The Complainant though claims that the customers i.e. NSAIL and RSPL have to take gas and have not arrayed NSAIL & RSPL as a party to the Complaint, being the necessary parties, no effective order could be passed against the customers, as it will be tantamount to the violation of natural justice as per section 13(3) of the Act and relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of J.S. Yadav vs State of UP [(2011) 6 SCC

570] in para 32, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held the following:

"31. No order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The principles enshrined in the proviso to Order I Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide that impleadment of a necessary party is mandatory and in case of non-joinder of necessary party, the plaintiff/petitioner may not be entitled for the relief sought by him. The litigant has to ensure that the necessary party is before the Court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise the proceedings will have to fail. …………….."

- 5 -

(iv) The Complainant has relied upon the CGD Authorization Regulations which are not applicable to the Respondent, being an authorized Natural Gas Pipeline Entity, and the Respondent is governed by a different set of Regulations i.e. NGPL Authorization Regulations. Furthermore, the Respondent is not setting up another CGD Network in the authorized area and only complying with the statutory obligation under NGPL Authorization Regulations.

(v) It is admitted fact that the Complainant has been authorized by the Board for the Geographical Area of Dhar District on 08.11.2016, and the terms of the exclusivity would be applicable with prospective effect thereof. Therefore, the Respondent is not infringing the right of marketing exclusivity (from the purview of being declared as a common carrier or contract carrier) of the Complainant.

(vi) Moreover, the customers of NGPL existing prior to the grant of authorization by the Board should be treated as pre-existing NGPL customers and not be claimed as CGD customers, until the contractual obligations with the NGPL Entity are sustained as they had entered into the first Gas Supply Agreement ('hereinafter referred to as GSA') with NSAIL on 13.08.2004 and with RSPL on 25.08.2004, which was much prior to the grant of authorization to the Complainant.

Issues involved

12. On the basis of pleadings and arguments advanced by the parties, the following issues are required to be determined:

(i) Issue No. 1: Whether the Complaint is maintainable on the ground of the limitation?

(ii) Issue No. 2: Whether the Complaint is bad in law for non-joinder of the necessary/proper parties?

(iii) Issue No. 3: Whether the act of the Respondent violates the rights of the Complainant entrusted by the PNGRB Act and Regulations framed thereunder.

(iv) Relief Both the parties were heard and in support of their contentions and the parties filed their submission by way of an affidavit to substantiate their case.

Decision

For the sake of convenience, all the issues are taken up for decision together.

13. The PNGRB Act established the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board to protect the interests of consumers and entities engaged in the activities relating to petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas and to promote competitive markets and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Further, as enshrined in the

- 6 -

act, the board has also been mandated to regulate the refining, processing, storage, transportation, distribution, marketing, and sale of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas excluding the production of crude oil and natural gas so as and to ensure uninterrupted and adequate supply of petroleum, petroleum products and, natural gas in all parts of the country.

14. In furtherance of the objectives of the establishment of the Board and to ensure the supply of natural gas in all parts of the country in compliance with the mandate of the PNGRB Act and provisions of the CGD Authorization Regulations, the Board, either through acceptance of the Central Government Authorizations under Regulation 17 of the CGD Authorization Regulations, granted in favour of entities before the appointed day or grant of Authorization under Regulation 18 of the CGD Authorization Regulations, after processing of applications submitted by the entities or through bidding process held in various bidding rounds, has authorized under Regulation 5 of the CGD Authorization Regulations authorized the various entities, to lay, build, operate and expand the CGD Networks in various Geographical Areas across the country.

15. In accordance with the provisions of the PNGRB Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, the authorized CGD Networks envisaged a certain exclusivity period, as determined by the Board under the Regulations, and during such period, the CGD Network enjoys immunity from the purview of being declared as a Common Carrier or a Contract Carrier (hereinafter referred to as 'exclusivity') and only the authorized entity may use the CGD Network for supplying the gas during such period, within its authorized Geographical Area (GA). Apart from this, infrastructural exclusivity is also granted to the authorized entity for a longer period [for the economic life of the CGD network which is usually 25 years (further extendable at the discretion of the Board)], conferring upon it exclusive rights to lay, build, operate or expand the CGD Network.

16. As per the provisions of the PNGRB Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, Natural Gas Pipelines (NGPL) and Petroleum and Petroleum Products Pipelines (PPPL) are allowed either as "Common Carrier or Contract Carrier" or "Dedicated Pipelines". NGPL and PPPL may be authorized as Common Carrier or Contract Carrier from the very first day of authorization whereas Dedicated Pipelines may be converted and declared as Common Carrier or Contract Carrier by the Board.

Issue No. 1

17. The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent is that the Complaint has been filed after the expiration of the limitation period. In rebuttal, as per the averments made in the Complaint, the Complainant has written the letter(s) dated 18.03.2020 & 19.06.2020 regarding the unauthorized activities carried out by the Respondent, as and

- 7 -

when the CGD Network of the Complainant is in readiness to supply the natural gas i.e. on 15.10.2020, the Complainant filed the instant Complaint on 29.10.2020. On examining the issue in hand regarding the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, it is essential to take into the consideration the relevant provisions of Section 25(2) which is enumerated herein below:

"Section 25: Filing of complaints:-

(2) Every complaint made under sub-section (1) shall be filed within sixty days from the date on which any act or conduct constituting a contravention took place and shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such fee as may be provided by regulations Provided that the Board may entertain a complaint after the expiry of the said period if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within that period"

As per section 25 of the Act, the complaint has to be filed within 60 days from the date on which any act or conduct constituting a contravention took place. In view of the facts of the instant case, the Board observed that the issue under challenge is that the Respondent is supplying the natural gas to NSAIL and RSPL, much before the authorization granted in the favour of the complainant for the Dhar GA and accordingly, the Complainant would have filed the complaint after the authorization granted i.e. 07.11.2016, the reason being that the Clause 1.1.4 of the Bid Document, entrusted the responsibility on the bidder (the Complainant in the present case) to obtain all information related to existing customers, if any, and accordingly, it may be presumed that the Complainant had the information regarding the supply of the natural gas to NSAIL and RSPL by the Respondent. However, as per the proviso to Section 25(2) of the Act, the Board allow the Complaint even after the expiry of 60 days, considering that the Geographical Area authorized to the Complainant i.e. Dhar District was the first GA authorized to the Complainant and since the complainant was new to the sector, the Complainant is in failure to abide the stipulated time frame given under the Act. In view of the discussion above, the Board is not inclined to dismiss the instant case on the ground of the limitation.

Issue No. 2

18. It is pertinent to mention that one of the prime mandates of the Board under the Act is to secure the interest of the consumers and to ensure that uninterrupted and adequate supply of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas in all parts of the country. This mandate of the Board has been captured in the various regulations framed by the Board in the exercise of its powers under the Act. Further, Section 11(a) of the Act provides that the Board shall protect the interest of consumers by fostering fair trade and competition among entities. Moreover, it is the objective of the Government of India to provide the cheapest natural gas through the piped network to the people

- 8 -

staying in the deep population and penetrate in the deepest corners of the country when it is incumbent on the GAs to lay down the infrastructure by the authorized entity.

19. It is a settled law that the public interest would always override private interest. The conduct of the entity, therefore, has to be seen in the context of public interest when the Government of India is aiming to move towards a gas-based economy by increasing the gas share natural gas in India's energy basket with an aim to promote and efficient and robust gas market. A reading of the scheme of the Act and the Regulations would show that the Board has been extensively focusing on building a robust pipeline network in the country to best serve the public interest and ensure the maximum possible development of the overall gas market.

20. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Complainant has not arrayed the NSAIL & RSPL as a party to the Complaint, being the necessary parties, therefore, no effective order could be passed against them, as it will be tantamount to the violation of natural justice as per Section 13(3) of the Act. The Board is inclined to accept the said contention of the Respondent, for the foregoing reasons that the relief sought for restraining the Respondent to supply the natural gas, would directly impact NSAIL & RSPL and at this stage, in absence of evidence, it is unable to examine that whether the NSAIL & RSPL are willing to take the gas from the Respondent or it is the Respondent who is forcing them to take the gas. In the interest of justice, the Board is of view that the complaint is bad in law on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary/proper parties. Thus, this issue is decided in negative and against the Complainant.

Issue No. 3

21. In order to determine whether the act of the Respondent is in violation of the Act and Regulations, as contended by the Complainant, it is essential to look into the following provisions:

21.1"Section 2(1)(i) of the Act:

(i) "city or local natural gas distribution network" means an interconnected network of gas pipelines and the associated equipment used for transporting natural gas from a bulk supply high pressure transmission main to the medium pressure distribution grid and subsequently to the service pipes supplying natural gas to domestic, industrial or commercial premises and CNG stations situated in a specified geographical area.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause, the expressions "high pressure" and "medium pressure" shall mean such pressure as the Central Government may, by notification, specify to be high pressure or, as the case may be, medium pressure;"

- 9 -

21.1.1 "Regulations 2(1)(f) of the NGPL Authorization Regulations;

(f) "natural gas pipeline" means any pipeline including spur lines for transport of natural gas and includes all connected equipments and facilities, such as, compressors, storage facilities, metering units, etc. but excludes-

(i) dedicated pipeline laid to transport natural gas to a specific customer to meet his requirement and not for resale;

(ii) pipelines in a city or local natural gas distribution network which are regulated by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008."

It can be evident from the aforesaid quoted provisions that on one hand, the NGPL includes a spur pipeline for the transport of natural gas and all connected equipment and facilities. However, it excludes dedicated pipelines and pipelines in a CGD Network. While on another hand, the CGD Network is an interconnected network of the pipelines and the associated equipment used for the transportation and distribution of the natural gas. It is ought to mention that the NGPL is regulated as per NGPL Authorization Regulations whereas, CGD Network is regulated as per CGD Authorization Regulations.

21.2 "Application-cum-bid documents clause 1.1.4

1.1 Geographical Area and Related Information Clause 1.1.4 It is the bidder's responsibility to obtain all information related to the present gas supply availability and pipeline connectivity and also existing customers if any in the specified geographical area…………" It is also evident from the aforesaid quoted provisions that it is the bidder's responsibility to obtain all information related to present gas supply availability and pipeline connectivity and also existing customers if any in the specified geographical area.

21.3 "Regulation 9: Grant of authorization.

(1) The authorization shall be granted to the selected entity in the format at Schedule D within a period of thirty days of the last date of submitting the bid."

21.3.1 "Clause 11(c) of Schedule D:

11. The entity shall comply with the provisions under-

(a) ……..;

(b) ………;

- 10 -

(c) the service obligations specified in Schedule J to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand Natural Gas Pipelines) Regulations, 2008;"

It will not be out of place to mention that Regulation 9(1) of the NGPL Authorization Regulations specifies a specific format for granting the authorization i.e. Schedule D. Moreover, Clause 11(c) of Schedule D specifies that the authorized entity shall comply with the service obligations as mentioned under Schedule J.

21.4 "Schedule J: Service Obligations of entity

(g) The entity shall be under an obligation to provide connectivity to the consumer within a tariff zone in a natural gas pipeline on receipt of a specific request, the consumer undertaking to pay the applicable natural gas pipeline tariff, subject to availability of capacity and the technical and economic viability of the proposed connectivity."

21.4.1 "Proviso of Regulation 2(1)(h) of NGPL Authorization Regulations:

"(h) "tariff zone"

(i)……. (ii)……. Provided further that the entity shall supply natural gas to any customer located in the zone subject to the techno-commercial feasibility of laying, building, operating or expanding a new spur line from the natural gas pipeline………"

It is evident from Clause 1(g) of the Schedule J of the NGPL Authorisation Regulations, that a Natural Gas Pipeline Entity shall be under an obligation to provide connectivity to the consumer within a tariff zone in a natural gas pipeline on receipt of a specific request. Hence, such consumers (even with a requirement of gas less than 50,000 SCMD) who are directly connected to an NGPL before the authorization of a GA are "NGPL Customers".

In addition to the above, the Board while fixing the NGPL Tariff subsumes all such connectivity of NGPL Customers as a part of the NGPL itself, and accordingly, all such NGPL Customers bear only the applicable NGPL tariff fixed by the Board.

22. It is the contention of the Complainant that the Respondent is in violation of Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD Authorization Regulations, as the Respondent is continuously supplying the gas to the customers through its pipeline having requirements up to 50,000 SCMD, in the geographical area authorized to the Complainant. Therefore, the Respondent shall be restrained to supply the gas to the

- 11 -

domestic and commercial customers having requirements up to 50,000 SCMD, in the geographical area authorized to the Complainant.

In order to examine the issue at hand, the Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD Authorization Regulations, is taken into consideration, which states as under:

22.1 "3. Application

(2) A CGD network shall be designed to operate at a pressure as specified in the relevant regulations for technical standards and specifications, including safety standards for maintaining the volumes of supply of natural gas on a sustained basis to meet the following requirements, namely:-

(a) customers having requirement of natural gas upto 50,000 SCMD shall be supplied through the CGD network;

Provided that until CGD Network is ready to supply natural gas to a customer (other than domestic PNG and CNG), such customers shall have right to get the supply of natural gas from any other alternate source or supplier, with prior permission of the Board, and if, once CGD Network is ready to supply natural gas to such customer, then, such customer shall cease to get supply of natural gas from such alternate source or supplier after 30 days of receipt of notice of readiness from the CGD network. "

23. On examining the aforesaid provision, the Board determines that the Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD Authorization Regulations is a condition given to a CGD Network that it must be designed to operate at pressures as specified in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Technical Standards and Specifications including Safety Standards for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as CGD T4S Regulations), with the consideration that customers having gas requirement up to 50,000 SCMD shall be supplied through the CGD Network. However, Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD Authorisation Regulations neither implies that any customer with a requirement up to 50,000 SCMD in any area (even if not authorized by the Board for the development of a CGD Network there) shall not otherwise get the gas supplies at all nor confers or reserves any exclusivity to any CGD entity even before granting the authorization. In addition to the above, the said sub-regulation also does not imply that any pre-existing NGPL Customer with a daily gas requirement up to 50,000 SCMD has been perennially kept as "reserved" for the supply of gas only by a future CGD entity as and when it is authorized by the Board. It is the spirit of the proviso of the Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD Authorization Regulations that in case even after the authorization granted by the Board as per the extant regulation, some of the authorized CGD entities are unable to develop the requisite CGD Network and are not in a position to supply the natural gas to industrial/commercial customers. In such case, until an authorized CGD Network (and not a CGD Entity) is ready to supply gas to customers, such customers shall have the

- 12 -

right to get the supply of natural gas from any other alternate source/supplier with prior permission from the Board.

Apart from that, it is essential to mention that the question of obtaining the prior permission from the Board, under the said amended provision dated 06.04.2018 would not be applicable for the pre-existing NGPL customers who have already been connected to and receiving gas supplies from the authorized Natural Gas Pipeline(s).

24. After perusing the affidavits and arguments made during the course of the hearing, the Board is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Complainant to restraint the Respondent from supplying the natural gas to the customers with whom the Respondent had entered into GSA much before the authorization has been granted to the Complainant. It is not a dispute that the Respondent had signed the GSA with the NSAIL on 13.08.2004 & 19.12.2008 and with RSPL on 25.08.2004 and 30.12.2008, which is much before the authorization was granted to the Complainant i.e. 07.11.2016. During the course of the hearing held on 14.06.2022, on a query from the Board, the Ld. Counsel of the Respondent and the authorized representative appeared before the Board, submitted that the GSA(s) signed with both the customers stand valid up to 30.04.2028 and, further, submitted that they had not connected any new customer to its pipelines after the authorization was granted to the Complainant for the Geographical Area of Dhar District i.e. 07.11.2016.

25. In view of the discussion, and the above quoted provisions, the Board is unable to agree to the prayer of the Complainant that the Respondent is in violation of the provisions of the Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD Authorization Regulations, therefore, the Respondent should be completely restrained to supply the customers namely NSAIL and RSPL, having requirements up to 50,000 SCMD located in the authorized Geographical Area, for the foregoing reasons that the Board had accepted the Central Government Authorization granted in the favour of the Respondent for laying, building, operating, and expanding the Natural Gas Pipeline and is not laying a separate CGD Network. Thus, the Respondent is governed by the NGPL Authorization Regulations and supplying the natural gas to NSAIL and RSPL, much before the issuance of authorization for CGD network to the complainant, as per the service obligation under the NGPL Authorization Regulations. Thus the issue is decided in favour of the Respondent and against the Complainant.

26. In view of the discussion above, the Board does not find any substance in the submissions made by the Complainant. In view thereof, the Board is inclined to say that the act of the Respondent nowhere violates the rights of the Complainant stipulated under the Act and Regulations framed thereunder. The Board holds that the Respondent is governed by NGPL Authorization Regulations and the Respondent being the authorized NGPL Entity, it is the service obligation to supply the gas to

- 13 -

NSAIL & RSPL, being the pre-existing natural gas pipeline customers. Therefore, at this stage, the Board is not inclined to intervene in the contractual terms of the GSA signed between the Respondents and its customers. Henceforth, NSAIL & RSPL cannot be forced to source the natural gas through the authorized CGD Network of the complainant in their absence.

Therefore, all the issues are decided accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the decision above on Issue(s) No. 2 and 3, the Board holds that the Complaint merits dismissal for not being maintainable and devoid of merits. No order as to costs.

PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

Gajendra Singh A.K. Tiwari A.K.Pande (Member-I) (Member-II) Member (Legal)