ADANI GAS LIMITED vs PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD — C.A. No. 3992/2019
Case under Section XVII. Status: DISPOSED.
CNR: SCIN010140432019
Filing Date
15-04-2019 05:49 PM
Registration No
C.A. No. 3992/2019
Diary Number
14043/2019
Order Date
17-02-2020
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2020 INSC 199
Disposal Type
Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ADANI GAS LIMITED
Adv. E. C. AGRAWALA
Respondent(s)
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Not Taken Up
Fixed Date by Court
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-02-2020 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 30-01-2020 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 29-01-2020 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 05-12-2019 | Not Taken Up |
| 04-12-2019 | Fixed Date by Court |
Orders in this case
Summary: Adani Gas Limited v. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Case: C.A. No. 003992 of 2019 | Court: Supreme Court of India | Date: February 17, 2020 Decision The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Adani Gas Limited and IMC Limited challenging the Board's award of City Gas Distribution (CGD) network authorizations for three geographical areas (GA 51-Puducherry, GA 61-Kanchipuram, and GA 62-Chennai & Tiruvallur). Key Holdings 1. 2011 Census Data Not Binding: The CGD Authorisation Regulations (2018 amendment) do not mandate that the projected number of PNG domestic connections be calculated as a percentage of 2011 Census household data. The regulations lack any explicit linkage between bidding criteria and census figures. 2. Board Note as Guideline, Not Absolute Rule: The Board's July 23, 2018 note establishing a 2-100% range was a non-binding guideline, not an absolute disqualification criterion. The language "may be treated as unreasonably high/low" indicated discretionary assessment rather than mechanical application. 3. Justification for Higher Bids Accepted: The Board properly allowed successful bidders (with highest composite scores exceeding 100% of 2011 households) to justify their bids based on forward-looking projections for 2026, considering factors like urbanization rates, historical growth patterns, and household projections. 4. No Natural Justice Breach: Hearing only the highest-scoring bidders to explain reasonableness did not violate natural justice principles, as other bidders had no legal right to participate in assessing whether the H1 bidder's quote was reasonable. 5. Board's Discretionary Power Upheld: Clause 4.4.1 of the Bid Document grants the Board discretion to reject unreasonably high/low bids "on a case to case basis"—a power properly exercised here through substantive evaluation rather than mechanical thresholds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts