Appeal No. 298 of 2013. Case: Gujarat Gas Ltd Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board. Uttarakhand High Court
|Appeal No. 298 of 2013
|Mr. Apoorva Mishra and Mr. Janmali M, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Prashant Bezboruah, Ms. AparnaVohra, Advs.
|Mrs. Ranjana P. Desai, Chairperson and Mr. I.J. Kapoor, Technical Member
|Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006
|July 22, 2016
|Uttarakhand High Court
The instant Appeal challenges the Provisional Initial Unit Natural Gas Pipeline Tariff Order (“ Provisional Tariff Order ”), dated 04.09.2013 passed by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (“ Board ”) on various grounds, inter -alia alleged wrongful interpretation of certain provisions of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 (“ PNGRB Act ”) and the relevant Regulations besides factual challenges. Some broad heads of challenge in this Appeal include but are not limited to matters related to date of applicability of transportation tariff (already decided by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 222 of 2012), Volume Divisor, Inflation Rate and Unaccounted Gas Loss (related to metering and venting) etc.
During the course of hearing of this Appeal, we re- emphasized the factual position that the Tariff Order under challenge is only provisional and is yet to be finalized. We suggested that all the contentions raised by the Appellant could be presented before the Board at the time of finalization of the tariff and the Board would consider the same independently without being influenced by the view already taken by it in the impugned order. That would expedite finalization of the Provisional Tariff Order and the Appellant would have the liberty to challenge the final order issued by the Board before this Tribunal if it so desired. We also ma de it clear that all rights and co ntentions of the Appellant would be kept open. We adjourned this appeal to enable counsel to get in touch with their respective clients.
It gives us great satisfaction to note that response of the counsel was very positive and their respective clients have also shown a positive and pragmatic approach. Counsel for the Board, on instructions from the Board, submitted that the Board shall complete the process of finalization of the Provisional Tariff Order as per the Regulations of the Board and all submissions of the Appellant and the stakeholders would be considered with open mind without being influenced by the view already taken in the impu gned order. In view of this pragmatic and reasonable approach shown by the Board, which we highly appreciate and in view of the fact that the counsel for the Appellant has also graciously agreed to our suggestions, with the assistance of the counsel and af ter taking into account the inputs furnished by their respective clients, we pass the following order without expressing any opinion on the merits of...
To continue readingRequest your trial