-1-

Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board New Delhi

In the matter of:

Case No.: Legal/24/2022

M/s AGP CGD India Private Limited

Through its Authorized Representative, Mr. Susheel Jad, Regd. Add: Unit No. 305, Third Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset-8, Hospitality District, Aerocity, NH-8, New Delhi-110037 ....…Complainant Versus

1. Hyundai Motor India Limited

Through its Manager (Legal & Secretarial) Mr. Nitin Regd. Add: Kumar Gupta, Plot No. C11 & 11A, City Centre, Urban Estate, Sector 29, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 ……Respondent No. 1

2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Through its Authorized Representative, Mr. Mahesh Chawder Gupta, Regd. Add: Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9 All Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400051 ……Respondent No. 2

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

JUDGMENT

20.01.2023

1. By this order, we will dispose of the instant Complaint dated 13.10.2022 filed under Section 21(3) read with Section 16 read with section 25 read with section 13(1)(g) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with the applicable regulations framed thereunder, by M/s AGP CGD India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Complainant') against Hyundai Motor India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No. 1') and Indian Oil Corporation Limited(hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No. 2') (collectively referred to as 'Respondents'), in relation to the infringement of its rights including infrastructure exclusivity and market exclusivity, vested with it under the CGD Authorisation for the Geographical Area (hereinafter referred to as 'GA') of Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as 'Subject Area').

Detailed facts of the case

GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT

-2-

2. AGP CGD India Private Limited, is a special purpose vehicle ('SPV') incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 by the Successful Bidding Consortium i.e. Consortium of AG&P LNG Marketing Pte. Limited and Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila Inc, having its registered office at 1st 10 East Wing, Worldmark 1, Aerocity, New Delhi- 110037.

3. Hyundai Motor India Limited is an industrial Consumer located in Kanchipuram District having premises in Subject GA, having its registered office at Plot No. C11 & 11A, City Centre, Urban Estate, Sector 29, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.

4. Indian Oil Corporation Limited is a listed Government Company under the direct control of the Government of India and is undertaking the business of Oil & Gas marketing and its transportation, having its registered office at Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9 All Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400051.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

5. The brief facts as per the pleadings filed on record are as under:

i.) The Board in pursuance to the 9^thCity or Local Gas Distribution Network Bidding Round

(hereinafter referred to as 'CGD Bidding Round') has granted authorization to lay, build, operate or expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Network (hereinafter referred to as 'CGD Network') for GA of Kanchipuram District on 26.09.2018 in favour of the AG&P LNG Marketing Pte Ltd. and Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila. Subsequently, on the request of the authorized entity, the authorization of the subject GA was transferred in the favour of the Complainant vide letter no. PNGRB/Auth /1-CGD (20)/2018 dated 01.09.2020.

ii.) The Board vide public Notice bearing No. PNGRB/Auth/1-CGD (02)/2020 dated 02.06.2020 stated that any entity can setup an LNG station in any GA or anywhere else, even if it is not the authorized entity for that GA. However, such entity shall comply with the Act and the extant Regulations of the Board, such as T4S Regulations. Thereafter, a clarification was issued by the board vide public notice dated 23.07.2020 which clarified that only authorized CGD entity can market natural gas up to 50,000 SCMD to industrial

-3-

and commercial customers as an authorised Gas during marketing exclusivity period of any GA.

iii.) The Board vide letter dated 28.10.2021 sought comments from the Complainant on the letter dated 08.10.2021 received from the Respondent No. 1 wherein it was seeking NOC for procuring Compressed Natural Gas (hereinafter referred to as 'CNG') from M/s Torrent Gas, as the facility of the Complainant is expected to be operational from March, 2022. It was also stated in the letter dated 08.10.2021 that the CNG domestic vehicles demand is increased and, thus, their CNG requirement is expected to be increased from 90,000 Kgs to approximately 2,50,000 Kgs per year.

iv.) The Respondent No. 1 vide email dated 10.12.2021 declared that the natural gas requirement of the Respondent No. 1 is 35 MT/day (which is approximately 45,000 SCMD) and requested the Complainant to provide different schemes/solutions of supply/installation gas solution available at Complainant's team. v.) The Board vide letter no. PNGRB/Monitoring/1/CGD-Connectivity/(55)/2019-Vol(2) (P- 3551) dated 12.04.2022 amended the terms and conditions of authorization of the subject GA, in terms of revised schedule for commissioning of Ennore-Thirvallur-Bengaluru- Puducherry-Nagapattinam-Madurai-Tuticorin Natural Gas Pipeline (hereinafter referred to as 'ETBPNMTPL').

vi.) The Complainant vide e-mail dated 27.05.2022 has issued a communication to the Respondent No. 1, assuring that the Complainant is in a position to meet its requirements. Further, the Complainant vide email dated 07.06.2022 requested Respondent No. 1 to share the current consumption details for the Subject Area.

vii.) Thereafter, the Complainant vide letter dated 20.06.2022 informed the Respondent No. 1 that the Complainant is in readiness to supply PNG connection to the premises of the Respondent No. 1 through piped network, as piped network is being laid from City Gas Station at Vallam on ETBPNMTPL.

viii.) In pursuance to various communication between the Complainant and the Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 05.08.2022 informed the Complainant that the Respondent No. 1 is keen to enter into a contract with the Complainant for supply of CNG however, for PNG the Respondent No. 1 has finalised the PNG Business with the Respondent No. 2, in terms of Regulation 3(2)(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 'CGD Authorization Regulations').

ix.) Hence, the Complainant preferred the present complaint against the Respondent No 1 & 2 in relation to the infringement of its rights including infrastructure exclusivity and exclusivity from the purview of being declared as common carrier or contract carrier,

-4-

vested with it under the CGD Authorisation for the Geographical Area of Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu.

6. The Complainant by way of the present complaint sought the following relief:

Interim Relief:

That the Board, pursuant to s. 13(1)(g) of the PNGRB Act, be pleased to issue an order granting interim relief to the Complainant, to be effective till the judgement in relation to the present complaint is delivered by this Hon'ble Board:

a) Directing Respondent No.2 to stop work of laying pipeline to the premises of Respondent No.1 and not to undertake any further work of interconnecting the premises of Respondent No. 1;

b) Restraining Respondent No. 1, Hyundai Motor India Limited, from implementing any arrangement that they have entered into with 37 Respondent No. 2 for transportation and supply of natural gas to its premises;

c) Restraining the Respondent No.2, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, from marketing PNG supply to CGD customers located within the authorized areas of the Complainant, including Respondent No.1;

d) Restraining the Respondent No.2, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, from laying a separate pipeline to supply PNG to CGD customers, including Respondent No.1.

Final Relief:

That the Board, be pleased to hold and grant the Complainant the following reliefs:

a) Hold that the Respondent No.2 has undertaken an illegal, unlawful and tortious activity of marketing natural gas to Respondent No.1 in violation of Infrastructure Exclusivity and Marketing Exclusivity vested with Authorised Entity vide the Kanchipuram CGD Authorization.

b) Hold that industrial consumers, such as Respondent No. 1, having a requirement of natural gas of up to 50,000 SCMD are covered by the provisions of Regulation 3(2)(a) CGD Authorisation Regulations, and claims of "long term business plans" are not relevant nor valid in terms of the language of Regulation 3(2)(a) CGD Authorisation Regulation;

c) Hold that Respondent No.2 cannot lay pipelines for supply and distribution of natural gas to premises of industrial consumers located within the Kanchipuram District GA;

d) Direct compliance by Respondent No.2 with Regulation 5A NGPL Affiliate Code;

-5-

e) Hold that Respondent No.2 is liable to pay damages of Rs. 33 crores (Rupees Thirty-Three Crores) to the Complainant for wilful interference and breach of the exclusivity vested with the Complainant;

f) Hold that, in addition to the quantum payable under Prayer, Respondent No. 2 is liable to pay such damages as may be quantified by the Complainant in the course of the proceedings.

g) Other Directions: This Hon'ble Board be pleased to issue such other directions, orders, injunctions, as this Hon'ble Board may determine in light of the facts and circumstances of this case.

Brief submissions of the parties Contentions of the Complainant

7. The major contentions made by the Complainant by way of the Complaint, Rejoinder and Written Submissions are as follows:

(i.) The Ld. Counsel of the Complainant while relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd., [(2022) 4 SCC 103] submitted that Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with continuing breaches and torts and states that in the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort continues. Since the injury caused to the Complainant is continuous in nature, the same cannot be said to be barred by limitation.

(ii.) The Complainant, being an authorized entity is vested with the exclusive right to lay infrastructure and exclusivity from the purview of being declared as common carrier or contract carrier, the natural gas in the subject GA. It is so stated that in terms of provisions of the CGD Authorization Regulations and CGD Exclusivity Regulations, the Complainant is vested with two types of exclusivity, firstly, exclusivity for laying, building or expansion of the CGD Network during the economic life of the project i.e. Infrastructure Exclusivity and secondly, exclusivity in terms of exemption from the purview of the common carrier or contract carrier i.e. Marketing Exclusivity. (iii.) It can be seen from the following documentary evidence that "actual" requirement of natural gas of the Respondent No. 1 is less than 50,000 SCMD:

a) Email dated 22.07.2022 from Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 wherein the pressure specified for natural gas supply was 2.5 bar, which is an extremely low pressure;

b) Email dated 10.12.2021 from Respondent No. 1 to Complainant stating that its LNG requirement is 35 MT/day (approx. 45,000 SCMD) and also stating, "In

-6-

our opinion we look for full supply & operation solution by authorized city gas distributor";

c) Email dated 04.01.2022 from Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 showing that the admitted annual requirement of Respondent No. 1 was of a volume that resulted in less than 50,000 SCMD;

d) Email dated 05.08.2022 from Respondent No. 1 to Complainant stating that only its long term natural gas requirement is above 50,000 SCMD. (iv.) The actual requirement of natural gas of the Respondent No. 1 is lesser than 50,000 SCMD and, therefore, the Regulations 3(2)(b)(ii) of the CGD Authorisation Regulation, is not applicable on Respondent No. 1. However, the said requirement falls under Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD Authorisation Regulation. Further, the Respondent No. 1 has "finalised its PNG business" with Respondent No. 2 based on its

"long term business plan", which is a vague possibility. (v.) The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent No. 1 vide its reply dated 01.12.2022 has placed on record an email dated 16.11.2022, wherein it has been stated that their revised requirements are Y-1 50,600, Y-2 50,921, Y-3 51,073, Y-4 51,295 and Y-5 51,295/SCMD. It was also stated that the said email was sent after filing the instant complaint, which clearly depicts that it is an overthought to try and overcome one of the grounds of the Complaint and was only sent one day prior to the date of hearing.

(vi.) It was submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent No. 2 in its pleadings has claimed that as the authorized entity for the ETBPNMTPL common carrier pipelines, it has the vested right to lay, build, operate spur lines within 50 km tariff corridor along the length of the pipeline. Since Respondent No. 1's premises fall within the 50 km tariff zone of ETBPNMTPL pipeline, it can build and is building spur line to Respondent No. 1's premises and a spur line laid by the Respondent No. 2, has no compression facility and is building a high-pressure pipeline towards the Respondent No. 1 to supply natural gas, is baseless submission reason being that it was admitted in the course of arguments that no formal agreement has been entered between R-1 and R-2 for supply of natural gas and therefore, there is no supporting document to back up their argument.

(vii.) The Respondent No. 2 is not a CGD authorized entity, and thus, as per the Regulation 12 of the CGD Authorization Regulations read with Regulation 6 of the CGD Exclusivity Regulation, cannot proceed in supply of natural gas and PNG to industrial customers like Respondent No. 1. Further, even if the requirement of the Complainant is considered to be above 50,000 still as per Regulation 3(2) CGD Authorization Regulation, it has to be the CGD entity that is to lay the separate pipeline. Respondent No. 2 being the third party cannot do so.

-7-

(viii.) It is stated by the Complainant that the basis of competitive bids submitted in the 9^th CGD Bid Round for the Subject area was availability of industrial and commercial consumers having a requirement of up to 50,000 SCMD exclusivity for the CGD Network. However, Respondent No. 2 is an authorized entity only to lay, build, operate and expand a common carrier pipeline and not to develop, lay, build, expand a CGD network.

(ix.) It is submitted by the Complainant that its Minimum Work Programme (hereinafter referred to as 'MWP') is based on the integrity of the exclusivity vested with it under the CGD Authorisation for the Subject Area and the Complainant has been developing infrastructure for enabling supply of natural gas in GA of Kanchipuram District, it has constructed the city gas station in the authorised area of Subject area, has laid pipelines and will be in position to connect the premises of the Respondent No.1 within 30 days from execution of gas supply agreement.

(x.) The Complainant has averred that Respondent No. 2 does not have vested right, as the authorised entity to lay, build, operate or expand the ETBPNMTPL common carrier natural gas pipeline to market natural gas to Respondent No. 1 and to lay pipeline to the premises of an industrial consumer located within a demarcated authorised area for development of CGD network and cannot lay a spur line directly to the premises to supply natural gas at low pressure of end consumer.

(xi.) The Regulation 3(2) of the CGD Authorisation Regulation does not provide, in any manner, an exception to the infrastructure exclusivity and marketing exclusivity vested with an authorized CGD entity under Regulation 12 of the CGD Authorisation Regulations read with Regulation 5 and Regulation 6 of the CGD Exclusivity. In addition to the fact that Regulation 3(2)(b) of the CGD Authorisation Regulation does not refer to a third party from undertaking the development of the pipeline to the premises, it is clear that the provision is not referring to a "common carrier" or a

"natural gas pipeline", (as defined in Regulation 2(1)(f) NGPL Authorisation Regulations), but a dedicated pipeline laid by the authorized CGD entity which is not part of the CGD network itself, which is excluded from the scope of "common carrier"

and "Spur line" that would be covered by the scope of ETBPNMTPL pipeline. (xii.) It is apparent that the provisions of Clause 1(g) of Schedule J NGPL Authorisation Regulation are not applicable in the present case and the Respondent No. 2 has not been undertaking the laying of the line to the Respondent No. 1 premises on account of Clause 1(g) of Schedule J of the NGPL Authorisation Regulation. However, it is apparent that the Respondent No. 2 has been suo moto undertaking marketing of natural gas since 2019 and has started laying the line to the Respondent No. 1 at its own cost and risk without any prior request for connectivity or even an agreement having been entered into with the Respondent No. 1in relation to the laying of the said pipeline

-8-

(xiii.) The Respondent No. 1 is the CGD customer who is having requirement less than 50,000 SCMD and admittedly wilfully refusing to accept the natural gas from the authorized entity, despite the readiness of the authorized entity, being ready to meet the requirements for natural gas of the Respondent.

(xiv.) The Respondent No. 2 is wilfully implementing a strategy to negate the marketing exclusivity that is vested with CGD authorisations granted to the Complainant and thus is wilfully interfering with the Kanchipuram GA Authorisation in relation to Respondent No. 1.

(xv.) The stand of Respondent No. 1 is that their requirement is above 50,000 SCMD and, therefore, it has the discretion to take the gas either from CGD network or through a pipeline not forming part of CGD network as their case falls under Regulation 3(2)(b) of the CGD Authorisation Regulations, however, the Respondent No. 1 has not submitted any facts or evidence or any agreement to support the same, other than issuing an email dated 16.11.2022 to Respondent No. 2 after complaint was filed, (i.e. one day before the first hearing in the matter) providing a revised estimate of its requirements for the next five years and specifically amending its annual requirements from Y-1 to be above 50,000 SCMD.

(xvi.) The Board vide its Order dated 08.12.2022 had directed to the Respondent No. 1 to provide the complete details of natural gas requirement on daily/monthly/annual basis, by way of affidavit. However, the Respondent No. 1 vide its affidavit dated 23.12.2022 has provided only two months (i.e. January and February) data of consumption of Propane and FO for years 2019, 2020 and 2021. As elaborated later in these written submissions, the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1 goes against their claim of having a requirement above 50,000 SCMD and in light of Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a presumption against the Respondent No. 1 is to be drawn in light of their affidavit dated 23.12.2022 which fails to provide the data as was directed by the Hon'ble Board in its Order dated 08.12.2022.

(xvii.) If the argument of the Respondent No. 2 is accepted, then the following position emerges:

a) within 50 km Tariff Zone, the NGPL authorised entity has the absolute right to supply natural gas to any consumer falling within its tariff zone.

b) beyond 50 km of tariff zone, if there is a customer having a requirement of above 50,000 SCMD it shall at the discretion of the consumer to also be supplied by the authorised NGPL entity. Therefore, only the small customers will be left to be catered by the authorised CGD entity which will have an option to lay down the pipelines from the tap-off points of the common carrier pipelines and this will not be economically viable for the CGD entity. Moreover, the small customers will

-9-

not receive the gas at competitive price as the operating cost from the pipelines to be laid for few small customers will be very high. Thirdly, these customers will not opt for natural gas as their fuel and continue to use polluting alternate fuels. This is against the spirit of the PNGRB Act and regulations.

8. The major contentions made by the Respondents by way of the Reply dated 01.12.2022 and Written Submissions dated 23.12.2022, are as follows:

Contentions of the Respondent No.1-Hyundai Motors

(i.) The present complaint is not maintainable, as the Complaint is barred by limitation as the same has been filed on 13.10.2022. Therefore, it exceeds the expiry of the sixty days' time period starting from 05.08.2022 when the cause of action is alleged to have arisen as per the Complaint.

(ii.) It was submitted by the Respondent No. 1 that the natural gas requirement for Respondent No. 1 is more than 50,000 SCMD as per the emails dated 04.01.2022 and 16.11.2022 sent by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2. Further, the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that Complainant was not aware of the natural gas requirements of the Respondent No. 1 which is evident from the mails sent by the Complainant. (iii.) The Respondent further submits that being an automobile manufacturer, Respondent No. 1 does not operate on a full year basis and the actual working days/operational days of the Respondent No. 1's factory in a calendar is 294 days only and not 365 days as alleged by the Complainant. It is also submitted that by taking into account the average working days in year, the requirement of natural gas for the year 2023-2027, was based on the projection quoted, which is as follows:

(iv.) The Respondent No. 1 submits that it is a customer clearly covered under Regulation

3(2)(b) of the CGD Authorisation Regulations and thus, has every right to decide

whether to purchase the natural gas from the Complainant or the Respondent No. 2 and

the Complainant is relying on an erroneous interpretation with respect to the meaning

of Regulation 3(2)(b) of the CGD Authorisation as there is no ambiguity in the

language of the same, because if the interpretation given by the Complainant is

accepted the same would result in addition of word "of the authorized entity" in the

provisions of the Regulation 3(2)(b) of the CGD Authorisation.

-10-

(v.) The Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the Complainant had averred that it will need 30 days to ensure supply of natural gas to the factory of the Respondent No. 1, the Complainant has not placed any material on record to show its readiness and to justify its claim of 30 days. Therefore, the Complainant did not possess the readiness required to supply the natural gas, the Respondent No. 1 cannot be forced to source the natural gas from the Complainant.

Contentions of the Respondent No. 2-IOCL

(i.) It is submitted by the Respondent No. 2 that Respondent No. 1 is an anchor customer which has been mentioned in the Detailed Feasibility Report (hereinafter referred to as 'DFR') dated 26.06.2014 approved by the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 2, which was submitted to the Board in accordance with applicable regulations and therefore, Respondent No. 2 is under an obligation as per the ETBPNMTPL Pipeline Authorisation letter dated 10.12.2015 read with Clause 1 (g) of Schedule J of the NGPL Authorisation Regulations to supply natural gas to the customers located within the

"Tariff Zone". The Respondent No. 2 is well within its rights to supply to Respondent No. 1 whether its requirement is below or above 50,000 SCMD. (ii.) It is submitted that the pipeline being laid by the Respondent No. 2 to the premises of the Respondent No. 1 from its ETBPNMTPL is a spur-line, therefore, the pipeline has no separate 'compression facility' and the source of gas is ETBPNMTPL only i.e., it uses the capacity of the trunk pipeline, which is a high pressure pipeline, therefore, said pipeline clearly falls under the definition of the spur-line as stipulated under Regulation 2(o) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Determining Capacity of Petroleum, Petroleum Products and Natural Gas Pipeline) Regulations, 2010

(hereinafter referred to as NGPL Capacity Regulations) and no separate authorization is required to lay spur line in terms of Regulation 21(3) of the NGPL Authorization Regulations.

(iii.) The Respondent No. 2 further submits that the requirement of the Respondent No. 1 is above 50,000 SCMD and for the purposes of its factory premises etc., the Respondent No. 1 has approached Respondent No. 2 for supply of natural gas from its ETBPNMTPL and, therefore, Regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of the CGD Authorisation Regulations would be applicable hence, the arrangement between the Respondents is clearly a valid.

(iv.) The Respondent No. 2 further submitted that the CGD Authorisation Regulations and the NGP Authorisation Regulations are to be read harmoniously and accordingly the rights and obligations of the Respondent No. 2 as the authorised entity for ETBPNMTPL shall prevail over the authorisation granted to the Complainant for the Subject GA.

-11-

(v.) The Respondent No. 1 has already provided a No Objection Certificate to the Respondent No. 2 vide email dated 14.05.2022 for initiating its activities within the premises of Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of supplying natural gas to its premises and also that the Respondents are in commercial negotiations and will be executing a Gas Sales Agreement in this regard.

(vi.) The attention was drawn to the fact that the Complainant even after three years from the date of grant of authorisation to it, failed to complete the CGD Network and resulting in such customers finding alternate option for supply of natural gas.

Issue for Consideration

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

(i) Whether the Complainant has any cause of action against the Respondents under the PNGRB Act, 2006 and the extant regulations framed thereunder, as of now?

(ii) Relief.

Decision

10. All 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 and for the sake of convenience, all the issues are taken up for decision together.

11. It is the case of the Complainant that the requirement of the Respondent No. 1 is under 50,000 SCMD and, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 has to take the gas from the Complainant as per Regulation 3(2)(a) of the CGD Authorization Regulations, instead of taking gas from the Respondent No. 2. In rebuttal, the Respondent No. 1 states that its requirement is above 50,000 SCMD therefore, it has a liberty either to take gas from authorized CGD Network or authorization Natural Gas Pipeline, as per Regulation 3(2)(b) of the CGD Authorization Regulations, whereas the Respondent No. 2 submitted that the Respondent No. 1 is the anchor customer who is being supplied through a spur line, which was part of DFR dated 26.06.2014.

12. It is essential to mention that it is admitted fact that no agreement is signed between the Respondent No. 1 and 2, for supplying of natural gas, therefore, it is difficult to determine, the actual requirement, due to lack of documentary evidence and, therefore, the Board at this stage, is not inclined to interfere in the present complaint.

13. It would not be out of place to mention that the Board on one hand by taking into consideration the present scenario of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Industry and while on other hand in order to protect the interest of consumers as well as authorized entity, had finally deliberated the question of readiness of the authorized CGD Network and decided vide order dated 09.06.2022 in Case No.: PNGRB/Legal/3-HC/(17)/2022 titled

-12-

'EICL Limited vs AGP City Gas Private Limited' that as and when the CGD Entity is ready to supply through its interconnected pipelines of CGD Network, then only a CGD Network would be considered to be in readiness to supply natural gas and, further, it is essential to mention that the interpretation given by the Board in the order dated 09.06.2022 while exercising its judicial capacity, would prevail over any communications/deliberation/opinions made prior to order dated 09.06.2022.

ORDER

14. In view of the facts of the case, the submission made by the parties, and the observations made, without going into merits of the case, the Board holds that instant Complaint is premature, and, therefore, dismissed. However, a liberty is granted to the Complainant to approach this Board, in case any right granted under the PNGRB Act and its regulations framed thereunder, is infringed.

15. However, as a matter of abundant precaution to prevent any future violations agreements signed between the Respondents, the same shall be preserved for a period of three (3) years and shall be filed before the Board as and when summoned, in accordance with law. No order as to cost.

PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

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