1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    1261   OF 2019

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO. 21986 OF 2015]

ADANI GAS LIMITED & ANR.       …..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.     ……RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Leave granted.

2. The appellant company is registered under the Companies Act,

1956 and  is  involved  in  the business of  setting up of  Natural  Gas

Distribution Networks within India. The dispute in this petition is with

regard to the Gas Distribution Network (for short ‘GDN’) in the cities of

Udaipur and Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. Challenging the order

dated 18.05.2011 of the Government of Rajasthan whereby No

Objection Certificate (for short ‘NOC’) for laying down of Gas Network

pipelines granted in favour of the appellant had been withdrawn

(including forfeiture of the commitment fees of Rs. 2 Crore deposited

by the appellant), and also the order dated 19.05.2011 of the Board

2

rejecting the application of the appellant for authorisation of its

projects in Udaipur and Jaipur, as well as challenging the validity of

the Regulation 18 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 (for short

‘Regulations of 2008’), the appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 10028

of 2011 before the Rajasthan High Court, which has been dismissed

on 29.04.2015.  Aggrieved by the same, this Special Leave Petition has

been filed.

3. Brief facts of this case are that on 19.11.2005 the Government of

Rajasthan invited parties to submit their bids for laying of Gas

Distribution Network in certain cities of Rajasthan, including the said

two cities of  Udaipur and Jaipur.   In response to the same, the

appellant submitted its Expression of Interest for the cities of Udaipur

and Jaipur. On 20.03.2006, the Government of Rajasthan informed

the appellant that it intended to grant NOC to the appellant for

undertaking  Gas  Distribution in the cities  of  Udaipur  and  Jaipur,

which was to be subject to certain conditions as mentioned  in  the

aforesaid communication dated 20.03.2006.  Immediately thereafter

on 22.03.2006, the appellant company informed that it agreed to all

3

the terms and conditions laid down by the Government of Rajasthan

in its communication dated 20.03.2006 whereby it intended to grant

NOC to the appellant.   Then, on 24.03.2006, the appellant deposited

the commitment fees of Rs. 2 Crore.  On 27.03.2006, the Government

of Rajasthan granted the  NOC to the appellant company for  Gas

Distribution in the cities of Udaipur and Jaipur.   The appellant then

started its work of laying down the City Gas Development Network in

the said two cities.  

4. The Petroleum and Natural  Gas Regulatory Board Regulations

Act, 2006 (for short ‘Act of 2006) was notified on 03.04.2006, except

for the provisions of Section 16 of the said Act relating to

authorisation.  On 21.07.2007, the appellant company made a request

for authorisation of its City Gas Distribution Project under Act of 2006

to the Chairman of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (for

short ‘the Board’).  In the said communication, the appellant had also

provided the details of its existing projects in the country, namely at

Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Faridabad, Noida, Khurja, Lucknow, Udaipur

and Jaipur.   The appellant had also submitted that in terms of

Sections 15 and 16 of  Chapter  IV of the Act of  2006, there was a

provision of ‘deemed authorisation’ of the existing City Gas

4

Distribution Projects and in terms of the Act of 2006, a brief dealing of

all the projects under its implementation was also enclosed.  

5. Then, on 24.07.2007, the appellant  wrote to the  Ministry of

Petroleum and Natural Gas requesting for authorisation of its City Gas

Distribution Projects under the Act of  2006 for all its gas projects,

including the ones  of  Udaipur  and  Jaipur.   The  Act of 2006  was

although notified on 03.04.2006, but came into force with effect from

01.10.2007, which was its appointed date.  However, Section 16 of the

said Act, relating to ‘Authorisation’, was brought into force only with

effect from 15.07.2010.   

6. On 30.10.2007 the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board

issued a press note, calling upon all the concerned entities involved in

or proposed to the laying, building, operating or expanding of a City or

Local Gas Distribution Network prior to the appointed date, i.e.

01.10.2007, to furnish the particulars of such activities to the Board

within six months from the appointed date.   It was further provided

that in cases where no authorisation was granted to the entities that

initiated the specified activities before the appointed date, then such

entities were to apply for authorisation under Section 17 of the Act of

5

2006.   The Government of Rajasthan, then on 05.12.2007, intimated

the appellant  of the press note  dated 30.10.2007 and required the

appellant to submit the details, as were prescribed in terms of the said

press note.   Two days thereafter, on 07.12.2007, the appellant

submitted the requisite details for the City Gas Distribution Projects of

Udaipur and Jaipur.   Then, on 11.12.2007, the Government of

Rajasthan called upon the appellant to further submit the details to

the Board in terms of the press note dated 30.10.2007.  In response to

the same, the appellant informed the Government of Rajasthan that

the said details had already been furnished on 07.12.2007.   

7. On 19.03.2008, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board

Regulations, 2008 were notified. Pursuant thereto, on 31.03.2008 the

Board issued a notice to the appellant stating that the appellant did

not  have the  requisite  authorisation by the  Central  Government in

terms of the proviso to Section 17(2) of the Act of 2006.   The

Regulation 18 of the Regulations of 2008 has been challenged by the

appellant on the ground of being ultra vires the Act of 2006.

8. The appellant, however, on 28.08.2008 filed an application under

Regulation 18 of the Regulations of 2008 for grant of authorisation of

6

city Gas Distribution Network at Udaipur and Jaipur.  In response to

the same, the Board issued a notice dated 19.11.2008 to the appellant

for oral hearing on 05.12.2008 and in the same meeting, the appellant

presented the status report as well  as the investment made by the

appellant, and expressed its commitment to the Board to develop the

project and requested the Board to grant authorisation  for the two

cities of Udaipur and Jaipur.   The appellant, in the meantime,

continued its development  work of laying down the gas pipelines.

Then, on 12.07.2010, by a notification of the Government, Section 16

of the Act of 2006 was brought into force.  After coming into force of

Section 16, the Board, on 29.07.2010, issued notice to the appellant

to once again appear before the Board on 04.08.2010 to show cause

as to why the application under Regulation 18(1) of the Regulations of

2008 should not be rejected.  

9. In the meantime, though no formal orders were passed by the

Board, on 28.02.2011, the Government of Rajasthan issued a notice to

the appellant stating that the appellant has failed to fulfil the

conditions laid down in the communications dated 20.03.2006 and

27.03.2006 issued  by the  Government of  Rajasthan and thus the

NOCs were liable to be withdrawn and the commitment amount also

7

liable to be forfeited.   To the said notice, the appellant submitted its

reply  to the Government of  Rajasthan on 16.03.2011. Then,  by an

Order dated 18.05.2011, the Government of Rajasthan withdrew the

NOCs granted to the appellant and forfeited the commitment fees of

Rs. 2 Crore deposited by the appellant on 24.03.2006.   On the very

next date i.e. 19.05.2011, by two separate letters, the Board rejected

the applications of the appellant for authorisation of projects at

Udaipur and Jaipur, on the ground that the physical and financial

progress achieved by the appellant did not satisfy the proviso of

Regulation 18(2)(d) of the ‘Regulations of 2008’ and even after

instructions had been given by the Board vide press note dated

30.10.2007, the appellant had allegedly continued with laying of

pipelines, in violation of such directions given by the Board in the said

press note.   

10. The appellant, then on 01.07.2011, wrote to the Board to bring to

its  notice that the  appellant  has  deemed authorisation  in  terms of

proviso to Section 16 of the Act of 2006 and the letters of rejection

dated 19.05.2011 of the Board to the appellant should be withdrawn.

To the said communication,  there was no response received by the

appellant from  the  Board.  Challenging the  order  dated  18.05.2011

8

issued by the Government of Rajasthan and the orders dated

19.05.2011 issued by the Board as well as the challenging the vires of

Regulation 18 of the ‘Regulations of 2008’, the appellant had filed Writ

Petition before the  Rajasthan High Court,  which was dismissed on

29.04.2015. The same is under challenge in this appeal.

11. For proper appreciation of the issues involved in this case the

relevant provisions of the Act of 2006 and the Regulations of 2008 are

reproduced hereunder:

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006

2. Definitions.  – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, ­ (a)…………; (b)…………; (c)…………; (d) “authorised entity” means an entity –  

(A) registered by  the Board under Section 15—

(i) to market any notified petroleum, petroleum products or natural gas, or

(ii) to establish and operate liquefied natural gas terminals, or

(B) authorised by the Board under section 16—

(i) to lay, build, operate or expand a common carrier or contract carrier, or

(ii) to lay, build, operate or expand a city or local natural gas distribution network; (e)…………;

9

(f)………….; (g)…………; (h)…………; (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.

16. Authorisation. — No, entity shall — (a) lay, build, operate or expand any pipeline as a common carrier or contract carrier, (b) lay,  build, operate  or  expand any  city or local natural gas distribution network, without obtaining authorisation under this Act: Provided that an entity, ­­  (i) laying, building, operating or expanding any pipeline as common carrier or contract carrier; or (ii) laying, building, operating or expanding any city or local natural gas distribution network, immediately before the appointed day shall be deemed to have such authorisation subject to the provisions of this Chapter, but any change in the purpose or usage shall require separate authorisation granted by the Board.  

17. Application for authorisation. –  (1) An entity which is laying, building, operating or expanding, or which proposes to lay, build, operate or expand, a pipeline as a common carrier or contract carrier shall apply in writing to the Board for obtaining an

10

authorisation under this Act:

Provided that an entity laying, building, operating or expanding any pipeline as common carrier or contract carrier authorised by the Central Government at any time before the appointed day shall furnish the particulars of such activities to the Board within Six months from the appointed day.  

(2) An entity which is laying, building, operating or expanding, or which proposes to lay,  build,  operate or  expand, a city or local natural gas distribution network shall apply in writing for obtaining an  authorisation under this Act:

Provided that an entity laying, building, operating or expanding any city or local natural gas distribution network authorised by the Central Government at any time before the appointed day shall furnish the particulars of such activities to the Board within six months from the appointed day.  

(3) Every application under sub­section  (1) or sub­section (2) shall be made in such form and in such  manner and shall be accompanied with such fee as the Board may, by regulations, specify.

(4) subject to the  provisions  of this  Act  and consistent with the norms and policy guidelines laid down by the Central Government, the Board  may either reject or accept  and application made to it,  subject to such amendments or conditions,  if  any, as it may think fit.  

(5)  In the case of refusal or conditional acceptance of an application, the Board shall

11

record in writing the grounds for such rejection or conditional acceptance, as the case may be.  

The  Petroleum and  Natural  Gas  Regulatory  Board  Regulations, 2008:

“18.   Entity not authorized by the Central Government  for laying,  building,  operating or expanding CGD network before the appointed day. –  

(1) An entity laying, building, operating or expanding a CGD network at any time before the appointed day but not duly authorized to do so by the Central Government shall apply immediately for obtaining an authorization  in the form as at Schedule I.  

(2)  The Board may take into consideration the following criteria while considering the application for grant of authorization, namely :­

(a) the entity meets the minimum eligibility criteria as 16[***] specified in clauses (a) to (e) and (i) of sub­regulation (6) of regulation 5 before the  appointed date  and  is  possessing all necessary statutory clearances, permissions, no objection certificates from the Central and State Governments and other statutory authorities: (b) an entity which is not registered under the Companies Act, 1956 at the time of submitting the application for grant of authorization shall undertake to become a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956: Provided that the Board may exempt an entity to register under the Companies Act, 1956 on such conditions as it may deem appropriate; (c) a satisfactory assessment of the actual

12

physical progress made and the financial commitment thereof till immediately before the appointed day in comparison with the entity’s DFR appraised by the financial institution funding the project. In case the project has not been funded by any financial institution, the Board may appraise the DFR.  The DFR of the entity should clearly indicate the specified geographical area of the project and also specify the coverage proposed for CNG  and PNG.   In case  upon  scrutiny  area, customer segments, infrastructure requirements, etc. proposed by the entity, the DFR is found to be sub­optimal and unacceptable, the Board may not consider the case of the entity for issuing the authorization; (d) in respect of the actual physical progress made and the financial commitment thereof referred to in clause (c), a physical progress of at least twenty five  percent  and  a financial commitment of at least twenty five percent of the capital expenditure identified for the CGD project as per the DFR immediately before the appointed day may be considered as adequate; (e) the entity should have arranged, by way of acquisition or lease, land for CGS and procured the necessary equipment for erecting the CGS before the appointed day; (f) the Board reserves the right to get the actual physical progress and the financial commitment certified and depending upon the progress achieved, the Board  may consider authorizing the entity for the authorized area— (i) as per the geographical area in its DFR, (ii) as per the geographical area actually covered under implementation till the appointed day; or (iii) the geographical  area as specified by  the Board;

13

(g) in relation to laying, building, operating or expanding the CGD network, it is for the entity to satisfy the  Board  on the  adequacy  of its ability to meet the applicable technical standards, specification and safety standards as specified in the relevant regulations for technical standards and specifications, including safety standards and the quality of service standards as specified in regulation 15: (h)  assessment of the financial position of the entity in timely  and  adequately  meeting the financial commitments in developing the CGD network  project as  appraised  by  a financial institution and an examination of the audited books of accounts of the entity; (i) firm arrangement for supply of natural gas to meet the demand in the authorized area to be covered by the CGD network; (j) any other criteria considered as relevant by the  Board based on the examination of the application.

(3) The evaluation of the application in terms of the clauses  (a) to  (j)  shall  be done in totality considering the composite nature and the inter­ linkages of the criteria.

(4) The Board, after examining the application in terms of the criteria under sub­regulation (2) and also taking into account the requirements in other regulations  may form  a prima­facie view as to whether the case should be considered for authorization.

(5) In case of prima­facie consideration, the Board shall issue a public notice in one national and one vernacular daily newspaper (including  webhosting) giving brief details of the project and seek comments and objections,

14

if any, within thirty days from any person on the proposal.  

(6)  The Board, after examining the comments and objections, if any under sub­regulation (5), may either consider or reject the case for grant of authorization for the CGD network.  

(7) In case it is decided to grant authorization, the same shall be in the form at Schedule D;

(8)  In case of rejection of the application, the Board shall pass a speaking order after giving a reasonable opportunity to the concerned party to explain its case and proceed to select an appropriate entity for the project in terms of regulation 6.

(9) In case the entity  is  selected for  grant of authorization for CGD network, ­­  

(a) the network tariff and the compression charge for CNG shall be determined under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Determination of Network Tariff for city or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks and Compression Charge for CNG), Regulations 2008; (b) the Board may consider grant of exclusivity on such terms and conditions as specified in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Exclusivity for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008; (c) the entity shall abide by the technical standards, specifications including safety standards as specified under relevant regulations for technical standards and specifications, including safety standards; (d) the provisions under regulations 9, 13, 14, 58 [***] and 16 shall apply to the entity.”

(emphasis supplied)

15

12.  We  have  heard the learned  Counsel for the  parties and  have

perused the material on record.  

13.  The main issue for consideration in this appeal  is whether the

Board was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant

under Section 17 of the Act of 2006 read with Regulation 18 of the

Regulations of 2008, after the provisions contained in Section 16 of

the Act of 2006 came into force on 12.07.2010 granting deemed

authorisation to those entities which had inter alia started laying and

building local Natural Gas Distribution Network prior to the appointed

date, i.e. 01.10.2007.

14.  It is not disputed that in pursuance to the Government of

Rajasthan having, on 19.11.2005, invited bids for laying of Gas

Distribution Network, the appellant had applied for the two cities of

Udaipur and Jaipur and after acceptance of its application, the

appellant was granted NOC by the Government of Rajasthan on

27.03.2006. It is also not disputed that pursuant thereto, the

appellant has laid approximately 75 kms of pipeline in both the cities

16

of Udaipur and Jaipur, and in the process, spent a huge amount of

money relying on the NOC granted in its favour for such purpose. The

appellant asserts that is has completed the following activities in the

two projects of Udaipur and Jaipur:

“Udaipur:

a) Received permission to cut roads vide letter dated 4.6.2007, made payment of Rs.14,28,900 towards road cutting bill and provided Bank Guarantee to the Municipal Council of Udaipur in this respect;

b) Purchase of  material  and  services for the project, amounting to Rs.452.99 lacs;

c) The Petitioners appointed M/s. International Certification Services (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., for the independent verification, inspection, certification of the  work done of the gas distribution pipeline. This agency was subsequently also authorised by the Board vide communication dated 6.4.2010.

d) The Petitioner had achieved mechanical completion on various phases of the project and accordingly has received Mechanical Completion Certificated in this respect.  

e) The Petitioner has successfully  laid 30093 mtrs. of gas distribution pipeline in Udaipur.

“Jaipur”:

a) The Petitioner has received provisional permission vide letter dated 7.3.2008 from RIICO for laying 41.1 KM of the gas distribution pipeline in Jaipur;

b) Towards the provisional permission received from RIICO the Petitioner has deposited Rs.54,95,500.00 with RIICO; and

c) Purchase of  material  and  services for the

17

project, amounting to Rs.393.22 lacs: d) The Petitioner has successfully  laid 22610

mtrs. of gas distribution pipeline in Jaipur.”

15.  Section 17 of the Act of 2006, which Act was notified on

03.04.2006 (except Section 16) and came into force on 01.04.2007,

provides that an entity which is laying, building, operating or

expanding City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Network, or which

proposes to do so, has to apply in writing to the Board for obtaining an

authorisation under the Act of 2006.   However, the entity authorised

by the Central Government for such activities would be required to

furnish the particulars of such activities to the Board within 6 months

from the appointed date. Sub Section 4 of Section 17 empowers the

Board either to reject or accept such application, which power has to

be exercised consistent with the norms and policy guidelines.   Sub

Section 5 provides that in case of refusal or conditional acceptance of

an  application, the  Board  shall record reasons in  writing for such

rejection or conditional acceptance.

16.  Section 16 of the Act of 2006, which came into force on

12.07.2010, relates to ‘Authorisation’. It puts an embargo to lay, build,

operate or expand in City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Network

18

without obtaining authorisation under the Act.  The Proviso (ii) of the

said section 16 provides for ‘deemed authorisation’ in case an entity

had been laying, building, operating or expanding any City or Local

Gas Distribution Network, immediately before the appointed date,

which shall  be deemed to have such authorisation.   In the present

case, the  appointed date  is  01.10.2007 when  the  Act  of  2006 was

brought into force, except the provision contained in the Section 16 of

the Act of 2006, which came into force on 12.07.2010.  

17.  The Regulations of 2008 were framed before Section 16 of the Act

of  2006 came  into  force.  Regulation 18 of the Regulations of  2008

provides that an entity, not authorised by the Central Government for

laying, building, operating or expanding CGD network before the

appointed date, shall apply for obtaining an authorisation in the form

as in Schedule I and the  Board  may take into consideration the

criteria  for  considering the application for grant of  authorisation  in

terms specified in clauses (a) to (j) of Regulation 18(2).  

18.  Regulation 18(2)(a) requires the entity to  meet the  minimum

eligibility criteria and other necessary clearances, as well as the

requisite NOCs. Clause (b) provides that the entity, if not registered

19

under Companies Act, 1956, shall undertake to become a company

registered under the  Companies Act, 1956.   The other factors in

clauses (c) and (d) as enumerated, relate to actual physical progress

made and the financial commitment thereon, and requires a physical

progress of at least 25 percent of capital expenditure before the

appointed date, which may be considered as adequate.   Clauses (e)

and (f) provide that the entity should have arranged and procured the

necessary equipment for erecting the City Gas Distribution network

before the appointed date. Clause (g) provides for the entity to satisfy

the Board on the adequacy of its ability to  meet the applicable

technical standards, specifications and safety standards as specified

in the relevant  Regulations.  Clause (h) provides for assessment of

financial position of the entity and Clause (i)  provides for supply of

natural gas to meet the demand in the authorised area to be covered

by City Gas Distribution network. The last clause (j) provides for the

Board to consider any other relevant criteria based on the examination

of the application.   All the aforesaid clauses are relevant factors and

the one which is put for consideration in the present case is Clause

(d), on which ground, the Central Government has primarily rejected

the application of the appellant.

20

19. It is noteworthy that the  language used  in Regulation 18(2)  is

that “the Board  may  take into consideration…………”. As such, the

language in which the Regulation has been couched does not make

the consideration in the said clauses, including  Clause (d), to be

mandatory, but no doubt the same would be relevant considerations.

On a careful perusal of the order passed by the Board, we find that the

application of the appellant has been rejected for reasons mentioned

in para 5 of the impugned order dated 19.05.2011, which are

extracted hereunder:  

“5.   The committee found that you do not satisfy the conditions laid down under the Regulation 18(1) 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 on account of the following:

a) Physical and financial progress achieved by  M/s. Adani Gas Limited before the appointed day  in  the GA of  Jaipur  does not satisfy the proviso 18(2)(d) of the Regulation 18(1) of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations 2008;

b) Even After clear instructions of PNGRB vide Press Note Dated 30th October, 2007 to stop all incremental activity M/s. Adani energy Limited had continued with laying

21

of  MDPE Pipeline  and  thus  violating the directions of the Board.”

20.  From the above, it is clear that the application of the appellant

has been rejected primarily on the ground of non­compliance of clause

(d) of Regulation 18(2) of the Regulations of 2008.   It was incumbent

on the Board to take into consideration various factors as specified in

clauses (a) to (j) of Regulation 18(2) of the Regulations of 2008, and the

same has to be considered in the back drop of the fact that the press

note was issued on 30.10.2007 to stop all incremental activities and

as such it was necessary to consider whether the appellant could have

been faulted for non­compliance of clause (d) of Regulation 18(2), and

whether it was a mandatory requirement or merely one of the factors

to be considered along  with all the other factors.  Other relevant

aspects as contained in the other clauses have not been adverted to by

the Board while deciding the application of the appellant, which were

also equally significant. It  was necessary to consider  whether the

appellant is compliant of various other factors as provided in clauses

(a) to (j)  of  Regulation 18(2)  of  the Regulations of  2008.   The non­

compliance, if any, of clause (d) ought to have been considered in the

light of the press note dated 30.10.2007 which required stopping of all

incremental activities.  

22

21. The peculiar factual position is that the Act of 2006 had been

notified on 03.04.2006 but came into  force on 01.10.2007 and the

NOC was issued on 27.03.2006, after the Government of Rajasthan

had invited open bids on 19.11.2005 for laying of City Gas

Distribution network in the cities of Udaipur and Jaipur, in which the

appellant  had been selected.  Besides depositing  the sum of  Rs.  2

Crores immediately towards commitment fee, the appellant had

thereafter incurred mammoth expenditure after it was successful in

the bids, which aspect has not been considered by the Board while

deciding the application of the appellant. In our considered view, the

same should not have normally been over looked. Besides the same, in

the factual circumstances of the present case, the provision of ‘deemed

authorisation’  contained  in Proviso  (ii) to Section 16 had also been

enforced on 12.07.2010 and it was necessary for the Board to have

considered whether it was a case where only certain safeguards were

required to be observed in view of the ‘deemed authorisation’.

22.  We are of the firm view that it was also necessary for the Board to

have considered all these aspects and thereafter to have decided the

application relating to authorisation/conditions to be imposed under

23

the  Act, if any, required.  Besides this, detailed replies  had  been

submitted by the appellant before the Board, which also ought to have

been considered. Further, the requirement under the Act/Regulations

is  for grant of  personal hearing to the appellant before deciding its

application and if personal hearing was given, to have discussed the

same in the order, which aspect has also been ignored by the Board.   

23.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that

there was illegality committed by the Board in deciding the application

of the appellant  while  passing  the  order  dated 19.05.2011,  and as

such the same  deserves to  be  quashed.  We  also  hold that in the

aforesaid factual background, the decision of the State Government to

revoke the NOC vide order dated 18.05.2011 was also highly unfair

and unjust in as much as the reply of the petitioner dated 16.03.2011

in response to the notice dated 26.02.2011 has not been dealt with by

the Government of Rajasthan while passing the said impugned order

dated 18.05.2011. As such, the same does not stand to reason, which

also deserves to be quashed.

24.  Accordingly,  we allow this  appeal to  the extent  that the  order

dated 18.05.2011 passed by  the Government of  Rajasthan and the

24

order dated 19.05.2011 passed by the Board are quashed.  The Board

is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter within 4 weeks from

today, in the light of the provision of ‘deemed authorisation’ and other

observations made hereinabove, after giving opportunity of hearing to

the appellant.   The appellant is given liberty to file fresh  written

submissions before the Board within 10 days from today.  

No orders as to cost.  

………………………..J. [ARUN MISHRA]

………………….…….J. [VINEET SARAN]

New Delhi 29th January, 2019

25

ITEM NO.1501               COURT NO.5               SECTION XV

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21986 of 2015

ADANI GAS LIMITED  & ANR.                          Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA  & ORS.                             Respondent(s)

Date : 29-01-2019 This matter was called on for Judgment today.  

Counsel for the  parties Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Adv.  

Mr. Divyansu, Adv.  Mr. Aayush Jain, Adv.  for Khaitan & Co.  

Mr. Munawwar Naseem, Adv.  Mr. Palak Mishra, Adv.  

Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Adv.  for M/S. Karanjawala & Co.

Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.  Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.  Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.  

Ms. Iti Agarwal, Adv.  Ms. Nikita Choukse, Adv.  Ms. Rinali Batra, Adv.  for DSK Legal

                   Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR

                   Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR

                   Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR                        

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran pronounced the non-reportable

Judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra

and His Lordship.

Leave granted.  

The application(s) for intervention is/are dismissed.  

26

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated in the signed

non-reportable Judgment.    

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed

of.    

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                            (JAGDISH CHANDER)   COURT MASTER                          BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)