New Delhi: Supreme Court on Tuesday Reveals Challenges of Adani Gas Ltd.
for the decision of the Petroleum and Gas Gas Regulatory Agency (PNGRB) to present the City Natural Gas Distribution Network (CGD) for Sanand, Bavla and Dholka in Gujarat Gas Gujarat.
Judge Law Judge, SR Bhat and Hrishikesh Roy did not only reject the appeal of gas to Gujarat HC, but also slapped the cost of Rs 10 Lakh to act naively about rules and regulations despite taking advantage of the same norms for the gas distribution network project in the Ahmedabad city area.
Adani has challenged regulatory validity of 18 from PNGRB (authorization entity to put, build, operate or expand the regulation of natural or local gas distribution networks), 2008 as a violation of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Indian constitution, and Ultra Vires Part 16 From Pngrb Act, 2006.
Adani also challenged the authorization grant to Gujarat Gas to put and maintain a gas distribution network.
Gujarat gas has managed to secure authorization in the auction held by PNGRB.
The Board has given a temporary permit to adani to carry out certain capital work in the Ahmedabad area, including the disputed Sanand region, Bavla and Dholka and Adani have submitted compensation in supporting the Board.
On February 4, 2013, the Board revealed the temporary authorization to the CGD Adani network in the Ahmedabad and Daskroi region, not including 18 CNG stations from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
The disputed area was removed from the temporary authorization.
Under protest, Adani received an authorization grant on December 9, 2013, although certain areas were excluded.
Adani moved the Gujarat HC who was looking for catatos from the authorization grant to gas grants, questioning the exclusion of disputed areas, and challenging Vires Regulation 18 framed by the council under the PNGRB Act.
Adani also argues that based on Part 16 of the PNGRB Act, has the right to be treated as an entity with “authorization that is considered”.
HC rejected the petition of Adani who said it was thought it was suitable not to challenge the validity of regulation 18, where it was given an authorization in connection with the Khurja region in Uttar Pradesh.
Destroying its appeal, SC said that Adani was prohibited from challenging the validity and constitutionality provisions that had been utilized in obtaining authorization for the Khurja region.
Writing a verdict, Judge Bhat said, “This is a problem note that PNGRB provides authorization to Adani on February 4, 2012 in connection with the Khurja region.
Given the background area, the argument about the lack of knowledge with respect to his rights, cannot be maintained.
Adani accepted and Acting on authorization, by completing performance ties, after it registered his protest (in connection with the excluded area) with PNGRB.
Even then, it runs to act on authorization.
“” Obviously, this behavior is the number of determination and reprobatting.
ADANI’s argument about lack of knowledge about His true rights, in the opinion of this court, cannot be considered, because it knows and is in accordance with procedures based on the PNGRB law, in particular, regulatory requirements, and regulation 18, when it is applied and obtained by authorization in other regions in this country, “SC.
After rejecting Adani’s appeal, SC asked him to pay the litigation fee of Rs 10 Lakh to the trade union government.