GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LIMITED Vs. GAIL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Gujarat State Petronet Limited (hereinafter referred to as "GSPL") has filed the present petition, seeking following reliefs as contained in paragraph 19 thereof:-

(2.) It may be noted that the petition filed on 30.11.2017 was sought to be circulated on the same day at 2.30 p.m., and the said permission was granted by the Court, considering the urgency in the matter. The Court after hearing the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore for the petitioner and the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Kamal Trivedi appearing on caveat for the respondent No.1 M/s.GAIL India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "M/s.GAIL"), had issued the notices to the respondents making them returnable on 1.12.2017 and granted an ad-interim relief restraining the respondent No.1 M/s.GAIL from laying and connecting the 8" Natural Gas Pipeline by tap off from its existing Dahej-Uran Pipeline (DUPL) for supplying gas to the respondent No.2 ONGC Petrol Additions Limited (hereinafter referred to as "M/s.OPAL") situated in Special Economic Zone, Dahej (hereinafter referred to as "SEZ, Dahej") till the next date. The said order is continued till this date. The respondent No.2 M/s.OPAL on filing the Civil Application No.15785 of 2017, seeking vacation of the said ad-interim relief, and the parties having completed the pleadings, the Court heard the Special Civil Application for admission at length along with the said Civil Application.

(3.) The case of the petitioner as stated in the petition is that the petitioner GSPL is a listed public limited company, and is subsidiary of Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "GSPC"). The main activity of the petitioner is laying of gas pipelines for developing gas grid in the State of Gujarat for transportation of natural gas. On the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the SEZ Act") having come into force, the petitioner Company had entered into a Co-Developer Agreement dated 27.7.2009 (Annexure-A) with the respondent No.3 M/s.DSL, the Developer under the said Act. According to the petitioner, the necessary permission being No.F2/9/2003/EPZ dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure-B) was accorded by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (SEZ Section), which was a permission by Board of Approval under Section 3(12) of the SEZ Act. Initially, the said approval was given for a period of three years, which was subsequently extended as per the letter dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure-C), and the validity of the said permission and the Co-Developer Agreement was made coterminous with that of the Developer. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has set up gas infrastructure facility, which includes gas pipeline made for transmission of natural gas to the units set up in the Dahej SEZ area and accordingly the petitioner is also transmitting gas to the respondent No.2 M/s.OPAL. However, the respondent No.1 M/s.GAIL in violation and in contravention of the provisions contained in the SEZ Act sought permission from the respondent No.4 Approval Committee to lay 8" dia pipeline from its existing Dahej Ural Pipeline to the plant of the respondent No.2 M/s.OPAL for providing facility for transportation of natural gas. The respondent No.4 Approval Committee, Dahej SEZ Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Approval Committee"), in its meeting held on 11.10.2017 at Item No.76.4.1, decided to approve the said request of the respondent No.1 (Annexure-D). According to the petitioner, such permission could have been granted by the Board of Approval constituted under Section 8 of the SEZ Act and not by the Approval Committee constituted under Section 13 of the said Act. The petitioner being a Co-Developer had exclusivity to develop infrastructure for transportation of gas and distribution of gas within SEZ area in view of the agreement dated 27.7.2009 entered into with the respondent No.3, DSL. The petitioner, therefore, wrote a letter on 8.11.2017 (Annexure-E) to the respondent No.3 i.e. the CEO, M/s.DSL, requesting him to reconsider the decision of granting approval to the respondent No.1. The CEO of the respondent No.3, therefore, wrote a letter dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure-F) to the respondent No.2 M/s.OPAL with a copy marked to the respondent No.1 GAIL stating that the Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited (GSPC), being a Co-Developer, it should obtain No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as "NOC") from the GSPC. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 29.11.2017 to the respondent No.1 (Annexure-G), requesting it not to undertake any gas pipeline laying activity without seeking due permission from the Developer M/s.DSL and the Co-Developer GSPL. A similar letter was also written to the respondent no.2 on 29.11.2017 (Annexure-H). The petitioner apprehending that the respondent No.1 M/s.GAIL would make the Tap off and lay the pipeline for transportation of gas to the respondent No.2, filed the present petition on 30.11.2017 seeking afore-stated reliefs.