Appellate Tribunal For Electricity

Agp Cgd India Private Limited vs Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory ... on 15 May, 2024

Author:
Ramesh Ranganathan

Bench:
Ramesh Ranganathan

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY AT NEW DELHI
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
APPEAL No. 25 OF 2023 &
IA NOS. 53, 52, 868 & 885 OF 2023

Dated: 15th May, 2024

Present: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Chairperson
Hon'ble Dr. Ashutosh Karnatak, Technical Member (P&NG)

In the matter of:

AGP CGD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Through Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Unit No. 305, Third Floor, Worldmark-2
Asset 8 Hospitality District, Aerocity ...Appellant
New Delhi - 110037

VERSUS

1. PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS REGULATORY
BOARD
Through the Secretary, PNGRB
1st Floor, World Trade Centre,
Babar Road, ... Respondent No. 1
New Delhi- 110 001

2. TORRENT GAS CHENNAI PRIVATE LIMITED
Having its registered office at
Samanvay, 600 Tapovan
Ambavadi, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat - 380015. ... Respondent No. 2

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. Paras Kuhad, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manu Aggarwal

Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Sagar Sahay
Mr. Sumit Kishore
Ms. Tanuja Dhoulakhandi
Mr. Mohit Buddhiraja
Mr. Kartikey Joshi
Ms. Sanskriti Bhardwaj
Mr. Suyash Gaur
Ms. Harshita Tomar for Res.1

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 1 of 184
Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Juneja for Res.2

JUDGEMENT

PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN, CHAIRPERSON

I. INTRODUCTION:

1. The reliefs sought, by the appellant in the present appeal, are to (a)
quash and set aside the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the PNGRB in
Case No. Legal/11/2022; (b) allow Complaint No. Legal/11/2022 filed by the
Appellant before the first respondent Board against the 2nd respondent in
terms of the prayers thereof, including: (1) hold that the following nineteen
OMC petrol stations, namely: (i) Ram Filling Station, Neelankarai (IOCL); (ii)
Vasanth Enterprises, Kottivakkam (IOCL); (iii) Sree Hanisha, Kottivakkam
(IOCL); (iv) VSV Agency, Perungudi (IOCL); (v) Lakshmikantham Service
Station, Pallikaranai (IOCL); (vi) VK Enterprises Coco, Madipakkam (IOCL);

(vii) Sree Balaji Enterprises, Ullagaram (IOCL); (viii) Om Sakthivel Agencies,
Adambakkam (IOCL); (ix) Kris Enterprises, Vettuvankeni (BPCL); (x) Sree
Vari Enterprises, Kottivakkam (BPCL); (xi) HU Sreeram Agency, Pallikaranai
(BPCL); (xii) ICPL Fuel Station, St. Thomas Mount (BPCL); (xiii) ASM Abdul
Kadir, Menambakkam Airport (BPCL); (xiv) JSK Fuel Station, Kovur (BPCL);

(xv) Krishnaveni Service Station, Paraniputhur (BPCL); (xvi)
Nandambakkam Petroleum, Nandambakkam (BPCL); (xvii) Metro
Petroleum, Kovilambakkam (HPCL); (xviii) Krishnaraj & Co., Menambakkam
Airport (HPCL); and (xix) R. Krishnamurthy, Manapakkam (HPCL) are
located within the geographical area of Kanchipuram District (GA ID 9.61)
authorized to the Complainant; ; and (2) direct the Respondent to pay
damages to the Complainant of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 2 of 184

only) for each CNG Station where it has started undertaking works which
aggregates to an amount of Rs. 57,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Crores)
for the nineteen CNG Stations being developed by Respondent in
Kanchipuram GA; (c) direct the 2nd Respondent to cease and desist from
laying, building or operating any CGD network in Kanchipuram District GA
9.61; and (d) direct the 2nd Respondent to cease and desist from
establishing or operating the afore-stated 19 CNG Stations in respect of
which the Appellant had filed Complaint No. Legal/11/2022 before the
Respondent Board against the 2nd Respondent.

2. The Respondent PNGRB, vide letter dated 26.09.2018, granted
authorization to the Appellant for development of a City Gas Distribution
Network in the Geographical Area (GA) of Kanchipuram District under the
PNGRB (Authorizing entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local
Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred
to as the "2008 Regulations"). The terms and conditions of the authorization
letter was accepted by the Appellant, after the judgement of the Supreme
Court in
Adani Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board
,
(2020) 4 SCC 529, vide letter dated 20.02.2020. The Board, vide letter dated
07.09.2018, granted authorization to the 2nd Respondent for development of
the City Gas Distribution Network in the Geographical Area (GA) of Chennai
and Tiruvallar Districts. The terms and conditions of the authorization letter
were accepted by the 2nd Respondent vide letter dated 11.09.2018. The
Appellant filed a complaint before the PNGRB, under Section 21(3) read
with
Section 12(1)(b)
,
,
and
13 (1) (g)
of the PNGRB Act, 2006 against
the 2nd Respondent, alleging infringement of their rights including
infrastructure exclusivity and marketing exclusivity vested with it under the
City or Local Gas Distribution Network Authorized for the Geographical Area
of Kanchipuram District. After adjudicating the said complaint, the PNGRB

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 3 of 184

passed its final judgement dated 22.12.2022 in Case No. Legal/11/2022
which is now under appeal.

3. In its order dated 26.04.2023, this Tribunal recorded the submissions
of parties that the issue was confined to disputes pertaining to 19 CNG
Stations which are (i) Ram Filling Station, Neelankarai (IOCL); (ii) Vasanth
Enterprises, Kottivakkam (IOCL); (iii) Sree Hanisha, Kottivakkam (IOCL); (iv)
VSV Agency, Perungudi (IOCL); (v) Lakshmikantham Service Station,
Pallikaranai (IOCL); (vi) VK Enterprises Coco, Madipakkam (IOCL); (vii)
Sree Balaji Enterprises, Ullagaram (IOCL); (viii) Om Sakthivel Agencies,
Adambakkam (IOCL); (ix) Kris Enterprises, Vettuvankeni (BPCL); (x) Sree
Vari Enterprises, Kottivakkam (BPCL); (xi) HU Sreeram Agency, Pallikaranai
(BPCL); (xii) ICPL Fuel Station, St. Thomas Mount (BPCL); (xiii) ASM Abdul
Kadir, Menambakkam Airport (BPCL); (xiv) JSK Fuel Station, Kovur (BPCL);

(xv) Krishnaveni Service Station, Paraniputhur (BPCL); (xvi)
Nandambakkam Petroleum, Nandambakkam (BPCL); (xvii) Metro
Petroleum, Kovilambakkam (HPCL); (xviii) Krishnaraj & Co.,Menambakkam
Airport (HPCL); and (xix) R. Krishnamurthy, Manapakkam (HPCL).

4. As shall be detailed later in this judgement, it was submitted, on behalf
of the 2nd Respondent, that a part of the then Kanchipuram District, where
these 19 CNG Stations were located, was included in GA 9.62 for which an
authorisation was granted in their favour. The dispute, in the present appeal,
revolves mainly around which GA the afore-said 19 CNG stations are
located. While the appellant contends that they all fall within Kanchipuram
District GA (ie GA 9.61) authorisation for which was granted in their favour,
both the PNGRB and the 2nd Respondent submit that they fall within Chennai
& Tiruvallur Districts GA (ie GA 9.62) authorisation for which was granted in
favour of the 2nd Respondent.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 4 of 184

5. The appellant seeks to support its claim that GA 9.61 is co-terminus
with the then Kanchipuram District, among others, on the basis that (1) nine
of the towns/villages with population of more than 5000, in which 15 of the
19 CNG Stations are located, have all been identified in the annexed map
itself as falling within Kanchipuram District GA; (2) these towns/ villages and
talukas (in which these 15 CNG stations are located) are not reflected in the
Chennai & Tiruvallur District GA (ie GA 9.62) map which was enclosed along
with the authorisation letter issued to the 2nd Respondent; (3) the charge
areas of GA 9.61 correspond with the Talukas of the then Kanchipuram
District; (4) the Kanchipuram District Boundary line in black overlaps the
Kanchipuram District GA Boundary line in pink; (5) the area of the GA in sq
kms tallies with the area of Kanchipuram District as reflected in the 2011
census handbook; (6) the fact that the error in the area, as recorded in the
original authorisation, was corrected by the Board at the appellant's request,
to reflect the area mentioned in (5) above, is also a tacit admission by the
Board that the boundaries of Kanchipuram District GA are co-terminus with
the boundaries of Kanchipuram District; (7) the population and number of
households as shown in the map of Kanchipuram District GA tallies with the
population and number of households of the then Kanchipuram District as
per the 2011 Census Hand Book; and these and other factors conclusively
establish that all these 19 CNG stations fall within Kanchipuram District and
resultantly within Kanchipuram District GA for which an authorisation was
granted in favour of the appellant; and a co-ordinates based exercise cannot
be undertaken to ascertain the locations of these stations, more so as no co-
ordinates of the CNG stations have been independently ascertained by the
Board, and the Board has accepted the 2nd Respondent's case without
independent application of mind.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 5 of 184

6. On the other hand, the case of the Board and the 2nd Respondent, in

short, is that, since the physical map, enclosed along with the application

cum bid document and the letter of authorisation, indicate the co-ordinates

of both GA 9.61 and 9.62, which admittedly coalesce and do not overlap, the

scientific method to be applied, to establish where these 19 CNG Stations

are located, is the Co-ordinates test; and all other modes of identification of

its exact location, relied upon by the appellant, are either irrelevant or pale

into insignificance as compared to the co-ordinates test.

7. Yet another aspect which must be taken note of is that neither the

Appellant nor the second Respondent seek to have entire process followed

by the PNGRB, in granting authorisation for Kanchipuram District GA in

favour of the Appellant and Chennai- Tiruvallur Districts GA in favour of the

second Respondent, set aside. The inter-se dispute is confined only to these

19 CNG Stations in that, while the Appellant's claim that the 19 CNG stations

in dispute would fall within their GA and it should be permitted to operate

them, the submission urged on behalf of the second Respondent is that

these 19 CNG Stations falls within their GA and, since they are continuing

to operate these CNG stations, no interference is called for.

II. A BRIEF BACKGROUND:

8. The Application-Cum-Bid Documents for the 9th round of bidding, for

various Geographical Areas including GA 9.61 (Kanchipuram District GA)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 6 of 184

and GA 9.62 (Chennai-Thiruvallur Districts GA), were web-hosted by the

PNGRB on its portal on 12.04.2018. Bids were invited separately for each

GA. Annexure-1 of the Application-Cum-Bid-Document (ACBD) of

Kanchipuram District GA i.e. GA 9.61 contains a map which is as under:

9. The left side of the map is the physical map of Kanchipuram District
GA and the longitude and latitudes i.e. coordinates are reflected on all four
sides of the said map. On the right side of the map is the total area of the
GA in square kilometers i.e. 4483 sq kms, the total population of the GA is
shown as 39,98,252, the total households in the GA are shown as 10,08,246,
and the total number of charge areas in the GA are recorded as 11. The
charge area ID and the name of each of these 11 charge areas is then
detailed on the right side of the map. Thereafter is a table titled Legends, on
the left side of which is the Vector and the righthand side is the Landmark.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 7 of 184

Under the sub-head Vector, details of the identification marks of (1) district
Headquarters, (2) Towns, (3) Villages with population of 5000 and above,
(4) National highway, (5) State Highway, (6) Railway, (7) GA boundary, (8)
district boundary, (9) sub-district boundary, (10) forest, and (11) water body
are furnished. Under the sub-head Landmark, identification marks are given
for (1) airport, (2) hospital, (3) police station, and (4) railway. Thereafter,
details of the map scale are furnished, the map date is shown as April 2018,
and the map table is shown Geographical Area Kanchipuram District. The
GA boundary of the physical map (ie Kanchipuram District GA) on the left
side is shown in pink and the district boundary of Kanchipuram district is
shown in black, both of which overlap. The 11 charge areas are also
demarcated in the said map. The Appellant contends that each of these 11
charge areas are in fact the Talukas of the then Kanchipuram District and
the total area of these 11 charge areas is 4483 square kilometers which is
the area of Kanchipuram District as well as Kanchipuram District GA.

10. As noted hereinabove, the map annexed to the ACBD (and later with
the authorization letter) contains identification marks of villages with
population of 5000 and above. It is not in dispute that 15 of the subject 19
CNG stations are located in 9 villages with a population of 5000 and more,
the details of which are as under:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 8 of 184

11. That these 9 villages are located in the Kanchipuram GA map is

evident from the enlarged map of Kanchipuram GA which is as under:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 9 of 184

12. Likewise, along with the Application-Cum-Bid-Document of GA 9.62
i.e. Chennai and Thiruvallur Districts GA, the following map was enclosed:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 10 of 184

13. We had recorded in our earlier order that the learned Senior Counsel,
appearing both on behalf of the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent, had
agreed that the maps of Kanchipuram District GA (9.61) and Chennai-
Thiruvallur district GA (9.62) coaelesce, and do not overlap. Consequently,
these 15 CNG stations either fall in Kanchipuram district GA i.e. GA 9.61 or
in Chennai-Thiruvallur Districts GA i.e. GA 9.62. As shall be detailed
hereinafter, both the
PNGRB Act
and the 2008 Regulations obligate the
PNGRB to clearly identify the GAs before inviting bids for grant of
authorisation for such GAs. Before considering this aspect, we must,
however, first deal with the rival contentions urged by the learned Senior
Counsel and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of parties of either side.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 11 of 184

14. Before doing so, it is necessary to note the contents of the impugned
Order passed by the PNGRB.

III. CONTENTS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER:

15. In the impugned Order dated 22.12.2022, the PNGRB observed that a
complaint was filed by the Appellant, before the PNGRB on 11.04.2022, under

Section 21(3)
read with
Section 12(1)(b)
,
,
,
13(1)(g)
and other
applicable provisions of the
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board
Act, 2006
("the 2006 Act" for short), and the Extant applicable Regulations.
against the 2nd Respondent - Torrent Gas Chennai Private Limited for
infringement of their rights, including infrastructure exclusivity and marketing
exclusivity, under the City or Local Gas Distribution Network (hereinafter
referred to as 'CGD Network'), and Authorisation for Geographical Area
(hereinafter referred to as the 'GA') of Kanchipuram District.

16. The Complainant was granted authorization vide letter dated
26.09.2018 for Kanchipuram GA, and the said authorization was amended
in favour of the Complainant vide letter dated 01.09.2020. The 2nd
Respondent was granted authorization by the PNGRB, vide letter dated
07.09.2018, for development of CGD Network in the GA of Chennai and
Tiruvallur Districts, and the said authorization was amended in favour of the
2nd Respondent vide letter dated 01.09.2020.

17. The relevant facts, as noted in the impugned Order, are that the
PNGRB invited bids on 12.04.2018 for the 9th CGD Bidding Round for
various Geographical areas, including the Geographical Areas of Chennai-
Tiruvallur, and Kanchipuram Districts. Pursuant thereto the PNGRB, vide
letter dated 07.09.2018, granted the authorization for the development of
CGD Network in the GA of Chennai and Tiruvallur District in favour of the 2nd
Respondent, the terms and conditions of which were accepted by the 2nd

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 12 of 184

Respondent on 11.09.2018. The press release issued by the Board on
14.09.2018, identifying successful bidders for the 86 authorized GAs, was
subjected to challenge before this Tribunal in
'Adani Gas Limited vs
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board & Anr.' (Appeal No.

292 of
2018), and 'IMC Limited vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board &
Anr.'(Appeal No.
323 of 2018).

18. The Board, vide letter dated 26.09.2018, granted authorization of
Kanchipuram District GA in favour of the appellant. Attached to the
authorization is a map which is as under:-

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 13 of 184

19. The Complainant informed the Board stating that they were not
Complainant is not in a position to accept the terms and conditions of the
authorization letter dated 11.09.2018. The Supreme Court, vide its Judgment
dated 17.02.2020, disposed of Civil Appeal No. 3992 of 2019 titled
'Adani
Gas Limited vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board & Ors.
',
agreeing with the order passed by the Technical Member and upholding the
authorization granted for Kanchipuram District GA to the Complainant and
for Chennai & Tiruvallur District to the 2nd Respondent. Thereafter the
appellant, vide letter dated 20.02.2020, accepted the terms and conditions
of the authorization letter dated 26.09.2018.

20. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ('hereinafter referred to
as the HPCL'), vide email dated 17.06.2021 enclosed a list of sample
layouts provided by the 2nd Respondent to HPCL for installation of
Compressed Natural Gas ('hereinafter referred to as the CNG) facilities in
Chennai, and informed the appellant that discussions were in progress, and
they were interested in facilitating CNG installation at their outlet in the
Subject GA. The appellant, vide email dated 17.06.2021 informed HPCL that
certain petrol station were falling under their GA; in reply thereto HPCL, vide
email dated 21.06.2021, informed the appellant that the 2nd Respondent was
claiming that four out of five CNG stations were falling in their GA; the
appellant vide email dated 07.07.2021 informed HPCL that the Subject GA
comprises the areas of Kanchipuram and Chengalpattu; the location of CNG
Station Nos. 1 to 4 fall under the subject GA authorized to the appellant;
HPCL, vide email dated 08.07.2021, requested the 2nd Respondent to
resolve the issue, regarding location(s) of CNG Station No. 1 to 4, with the
appellant as HPCL had already started work at CNG Station No. 2; the 2nd
Respondent, vide email dated 08.07.2021, informed HPCL that 'KMZ' Map

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 14 of 184

shared by them with HPCL was the official map of their GA issued by the
PNGRB and, unless the Board notified revised GA boundaries, the said KMZ
map had to considered as the official boundaries of the GA.

21. The impugned Order thereafter records that the appellant, vide letter
dated 17.08.2021, had informed the Board that it had issued Tender No.
PNGRB/Auth-1/CGD(03)/2021 "For Supplying GIS Bases Geographical
Area Maps", which was based on the Survey of India Map and, if the Board
has finalized the agencies to provide the maps, the Complainant may
procure the same from the agencies with due permission of the Board, and
they be provided with the digital map of the subject GA; in response thereto,
the Board, vide letter dated 23.09.2021, informed that Tender No.
PNGRB/Auth-1/CGD(03)/2021 for supplying GIS based Geographical Area
Map, was cancelled, and no agency was hired for the said tender; a GIS
Map, indicating the respective GA and its boundaries, had already been
provided along with the authorization letters of the Subject GA; the district
boundaries with the GAs were considered to be defined by the Survey of
India/Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India or the
respective local authority such as the District Administration; and, in case
any confirmation was required in relation to a district boundary, the same
shall be dealt directly with the District Administration or the Municipal
Corporation; the appellant, vide letter dated 23.09.2021, requested the Chief
Controller of Explosives, Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization
(PESO) to provide the list of 19 locations falling within the subject GA where
the 2nd Respondent was undertaking works to establish CNG stations, and not
to consider any request of the 2nd Respondent pertaining to the same.

22. In order to verify the limits of the district, the appellant, vide letter
dated 24.09.2021, requested the District Collector, Kancipurram to provide
the district map of the Subject GA according to Census of India, 2011;

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 15 of 184

subsequently, the District Collector provided the verified map of
Kanchipuram District. Relying on the map provided by the District Collector,
the appellant vide letter(s) dated 19.10.2021, provided details of the
boundaries of the Subject GA all the Oil Marketing Companies (OMC), and
informed them that setting up of CNG Stations by the 2nd Respondent in the
subject GA was in violation of the
PNGRB Act
and the authorization vested
with the appellant; thereafter, vide letter dated 31.01.2021, the appellant
informed the 2nd Respondent that they were attempting to set up CNG
dispensing facilities in the Subject GA. They were requested to stop the
construction activities undertaken at various retail outlets. In response
thereto, the 2nd Respondent, vide its letter dated 22.02.2022, clarified that
Chennai GA was spread over certain parts of Kanchipuram, as per the map
web-hosted by the Board, during the bidding process, and the activities
carried out by the 2nd Respondent were in compliance with the Geo-
Coordinate Boundary of Chennai GA; the appellant, vide letter dated
19.01.2022, informed the Board that an error had occurred in para 1 of the
terms and conditions of the authorization letter dated 26.09.2018 mentioning
the total authorized area of the GA to be '6936.50 sq. kilometres' instead of
'4483 sq. kilometres' and sought correction of the same, which was
accepted by the Board vide letter 31.01.2022.

23. Alleging that the Respondent was still in the process of construction
work of the CNG Stations in the Subject GA, the appellant filed the complaint
on 11.04.2022, and after notice and completion of pleadings, the matter was
finally heard on 07.07.2022. In order to get a ground report, the Board, vide
order dated 29.09.2022, constituted a three members committee to visit the
disputed area on 06.10.2022, and directed status quo to be maintained. On
the report of the Committee being placed before it on 18.10.2022, the Board
directed certified copy of the Committee Report to be supplied to the parties
to enable them to file their objections.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 16 of 184

24. After extracting the contents of the report, the impugned order records
the relief sought by the appellant and their contentions. Their contentions
are (1) the 2nd Respondent is encroaching upon the area of the Subject GA
having set up and operating 3 CNG Station. They are in process of setting up
16 more CNG Stations. (2) the 2nd Respondent has not disputed that the
town/villages and charge area, where the subject CNG Stations are located,
are specified by name in the map annexed with the authorization letter
issued to the Complainant, by the Board. (3) the contention of the 2nd
Respondent that the names of these towns/villages and charge area are to
be ignored, and only the contours of the boundary of the map with reference
to the Geospatial Coordinates i.e. Latitude and Longitude, which will result
in the Subject CNG Stations falling within the GA of the Respondent. (4) in
terms of the Public Notice dated 10.03.2016, the Board issued a tender for
hiring vendors for supplying customised maps. Clause 17.1.1 specifies the
scope of the work for the vendors which includes preparation of Individual
GA Maps depicting the Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal as Charge Area and pointing to
important town/cities District HQ and National/State Highway on the map. (5)
pursuant to the public notice dated 10.03.2016, the Board identified a list of
possible CGD GAs for the upcoming CGD Bidding Round. The said public
notice made it explicit that the concept of GA for CGD Bidding was based on
the district concept. (6) the Board specified its attention to consider
Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal as Charge Area, by another public notice dated
24.02.2018 and 01.03.2018. The public notice dated 24.02.2018 was issued
district wise, later on public notice was issued GA wise. Both the public
notices emphasise that the identification of GA was based on the
Administrative Districts. (7) By the public notice dated 01.03.2018, the Board
emphasised that the basis of identification of the GA was Administrative
District, and GA 9.61 comprised of Kanchipuram District and GA 9.62
comprised of Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts. (8) the public notice dated

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 17 of 184

01.03.2018 shows that the Board gave wide publicity of its intention to form
one GA comprising of Administrative Districts of Kanchipuram and another
GA comprising of Administrative Districts of Chennai & Tiruvallur. At no
stage, the Board formed any opinion with respect to such co-ordinates, by
which the 2nd Respondent was allegedly authorized. (9) by Public Notice No:

PNGRB/MAPS/2018 dated 18.01.2018, the Board, through a vendor,
undertook the exercise of preparation of maps on the same scope of work
as of the public notice dated 10.03.2016. (10) the Application-cum-Bid
document (hereinafter referred to as 'ACBD') dated 06.04.2018 was issued
with the identification of the GA and the Charge Area on the basis of
Administrative District and Talukas/Tehsils/Mandals respectively. The stand
of the Board, as recorded in para 47 of the Judgment of APTEL in Appeal
No. 292/2018 dated 28.02.2019, was that the GAs were identified with
reference to Administrative Districts as they existed at the time of the census
of the year 2011. It was the case of the 2nd Respondent before APTEL that
they had been authorized by the Board which is, in fact, the same as the
Administrative District and the same was admitted by the 2nd Respondent in
its pleadings. (11) the 2nd Respondent's contention, in the proceedings
before APTEL and the Supreme Court, was that the description by name of
the charge areas, number of households and population mentioned in the
authorized map were not relevant. This is wholly inconsistent with its own
stand in respect of GA 9.72. In those proceedings, when the 2nd Respondent
observed that there was an error in these figures, when compared with
administrative boundaries and data, it was brought to the knowledge of the
Board, that with respect to the Subject GA, no such error was highlighted.
Thus, the 2nd Respondent accepted the description of Charge Area, and the
population in GA 9.61 & 9.62, was correct. The 2nd Respondent was now
estopped from taking the plea that part of charge area of the Subject GA falls
under the GA authorized to the 2nd Respondent. (12) if the contention of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 18 of 184

2nd Respondent that a mistake was committed by the vendor during the
ministerial exercise of drawing a map of GA, if accepted and applied across
the Board, would result in the following: (a) the villages and charge areas
specified in the map issued for GA 9.61, would be part of GA 9.62, (b) the
total area of GA 9.61 would stand reduced to 4296.22 sq. km. from the total
area of 4483 sq. km. specified in the map issued by the Board for the Subject
GA, (c) the total area of GA 9.62 would stand enhanced to 3738.67 sq. km.
from the total area of 3562 sq. km. stated in the map issued by the Board for
Chennai & Trivullar District, (d) there will be significant overlap in different
GAs which form part of different CGD Bidding Rounds and, further, all the
GA boundaries would have to be redefined which would lead to chaos in the
CGD Sector, and (e ) all the information provided in the map such as vectors,
total area, population, number of households, industrial areas, charge areas
etc. would become irrelevant; and (13) there was no delay in filing the
Complaint as discussions with the 2nd Respondent completely failed only on
22.02.2022 when they stated that the authorization should be treated in
terms of the geo-coordinates boundaries.

25. The impugned Order then records the contentions of the 2nd
Respondent as under: (1) they are merely operating within the coordinates
provided in the map supplied and webhosted by the Board. The appellant
does not dispute the same. It claims, without justification, that the basis of
the Board's determination of a GA is not the co-ordinates, but the legends
and vectors given in the map and the figures stated in the 2011 Census. (2)
a map can be prepared to scale, with accurate depiction of landmarks, etc,
only with the proper use of coordinates. Unlike a geo- coordinate map which
is the "primary basis" of determination, the nomenclature and legends
remain subordinate to the map depicting the latitude and longitude and
cannot substitute the primary basis which fixes the contours of the
authorized Geographical Area. Mention of the name of the district, taluks,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 19 of 184

villages, etc. therein works only as a reference, and not as the grounds of
the geographical limits. (3) They had sought the original (digital) maps used
for the geo-coordinates map from the Board. These maps were provided by
Board on 01.09.2020 (in the form of '.shp' file) and they were exactly as per
the co-ordinates webhosted for the bid and later forming part of the
authorization. This establishes that the 2 n d Respondent is operating within
the co-ordinates given in the map for the authorized GA. (4) the tender
document does not refer to the said Public Notice, and the nomenclature of
the GA is merely indicative and does not necessarily mean the whole district.

(5) There is no overlap in GA Nos. 9.61 and 9.62, and the appellant is
deliberately causing confusion between the boundary of a GA and that of the
district. (6) the provisions of the Act, and the Regulations made thereunder,
show that a specified geographical area could be a combination of
administrative demarcation in entirety or a part thereof. Neither the PNGRB
Act nor the Regulations restrict the specified geographical area to the
administrative boundary, and the same is also not even remotely linked to
any census data. (7) if the intention of the Board was to apply this district
concept to the 9th Bidding Round, it would have appropriately incorporated
the same in the Regulations, which were amended a couple of months
before the date of conclusion of bid submission (i.e. 10.07.2018). Even
during the bidding process, no such indication/ clarification was given by the
Board. (8) the GA boundary and the district boundary are two entirely
different concepts, and both serve completely different purposes. The GA
boundary is the area/region depicted by the map with geo-coordinates as
provided by the Board and for which the bid had been invited by the Board
for the development of the CGD network. The concept of a district boundary
is only for administration purposes. The district boundary does not have any
sanctity under the statutory framework i.e. the
PNGRB Act
and the
Regulations made thereunder. (9) the charge areas are merely a subset of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 20 of 184

the GA, and cannot be forcibly introduced as a new basis for defining the
specified geographical area, which does not exist in the
PNGRB Act
or in the
Regulations framed thereunder. (10) The appellant's contention that the area
awarded to the 2nd Respondent cannot be more than 3,569 sq. km is not
tenable. The authorization for GA 9.62 states that the proposed CGD
network shall cover an area of 3,569 sq. km "and as depicted in the
enclosed drawing or map". It is, therefore, possible that the GA area number
may be more or less than the number given, and it is the GA map which is
sacrosanct. (11) Until the 10th CGD Bidding Round, all the GAs authorized
by the Board were always accompanied by the map with geo-coordinates
forming part of the authorization letter. The concept of referring to the maps
of Survey of India has been introduced only from the 11th CGD Bidding
Round. (12) The Public Notice dated 18.01.2018, for the supply of
customized and inter-active maps, nowhere mentions that the vendor should
place reliance on the Survey of India maps or on the district boundary as per
the 2011 Census. As per the scope of work given in the said tender, the
geographical data used by the vendor to prepare the maps could not have
been more than 2 years old. In these circumstances, the question of placing
reliance on the 2011 Census (for a tender issued in 2018) does not even
arise. (13) The appellant was negligent and failed to undertake its own
survey/ due diligence of the area. Its conduct and submissions are
inconsistent with its own case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). (14) the Complaint is time-barred.
The appellant had been authorized by the Board on 07.09.2018. It came to
the knowledge of the appellant in June 2021 that 2nd Respondent was
claiming certain outlets falling within GA authorized to the 2nd Respondent.
The appellant had approached the Board on 11.04.2022, almost after a lapse
of a year since then.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 21 of 184

26. On the basis of pleadings and arguments, the PNGRB framed the
following issues for determination: (i) Issue No. 1: Whether the Complaint
was time barred as per the provision of
Section 25
of the PNGRB Act?; (ii)
Issue No. 2: Whether the boundaries of the Geographical Area authorized
to the parties would be depicted on the basis of district boundaries as per
2011 census?; (iii) Issue No. 3: Whether the Subject CNG Stations were
falling under the Geographical Area of the Complainant (ie the appellant)?;
and (iv): Relief.

27. The Board then observed that, since its inception, it had conducted 11
CGD Bidding Rounds wherein 297 GAs had been authorized, which covered
97% of the population and 88% of the area of the country.

28. On Issue No. 1, the Board, after extracting
Section 25
of the PNGRB Act,
observed that, as per
section 25
of the Act, the complaint had to be filed within
60 days from the date on which any act or conduct constituting a
contravention took place; in view of the facts of the instant case, the Board
observed that, various communications were exchanged between the
appellant and the 2nd Respondent which lasted up to 22.02.2022 when the
2nd Respondent declined to stop the activities carried out in Kanchipuram
District; the appellant had also contended that it came to know of the
activities of the 2nd Respondent in Kanchipuram District in July 2021, since
then communications were exchanged, and the opening and operating of
the Subject CNG Stations would tantamount to arising of a continuing cause
of action; and there was breach and violation in the authorized area of the
appellant, which continued till date.

29. The Board expressed its inclination to agree with the submission of
the appellant for the reason that the averments contained in the complaint
stated that continuous contravention was taking place in the area authorized

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 22 of 184

to the Complainant; and, thus, this issue was decided in favour of the
appellant and against the 2nd Respondent.

30. On Issue No. 2, the Board observed that, after forming a prima-facie
view, it had issued public notices with respect to the process of
bidding/authorizing the Geographical Areas, and the same nowhere affirmed
that it would be a final decision of the Board; pursuant to issuance of the
public notice, the Board invites comments/suggestion, if required, from the
public at large; and thereafter, the Board takes into consideration the
comments/suggestions and formulates its final decision.

31. The Board expressed its disinclination to accept the submission of the
appellant that the public notice dated 01.03.2018 mentioned that the basis
of identification of GA was Administrative District; the intention of the Board
was never to authorize One Whole District as a Geographical Area; the
Board, on various occasions, had authorized Full/Part/Multiple District(s) as
a Geographical Area to numerous entities, in the 9th CGD Bidding Round; as
per the contents of the ACBD, it was the obligation of the bidder that he must
be completely aware of the whereabouts of the proposed geographical area
and charge areas, for which the bid was being submitted; in the present
case, both the appellant as well the 2nd Respondent had bid for the Subject
GA wherein the appellant became the successful bidder; at the time of
submission of bids for the Subject GAs, none of the parties had either
brought this to the notice of the Board nor raised any objection regarding
the issue relating to the boundaries of the GA of Kanchipuram District
and Chennai & Trivullar Districts.

32. With respect to the contention of the appellant that the GA comprised
of identified talukas, villages, population, households, and landmarks which
were based on the district boundaries of Kanchipuram District as of Census
2011, and was the basis of the bid of the GA authorized under the 9th CGD

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 23 of 184

Bidding Round, the Board noted that the 2nd Respondent had claimed that
they were working within the boundaries as per the co-ordinates provided in
the map of authorization by the Board, and the geographical co-ordinates
provided with the map demarcated the area represented in the map and
therefore the locations that fell within the co-ordinates would form part of the
relevant geographical area.

33. The Board then observed that, for determining the issue at hand, it
was essential to look into
Regulation 2(1)(c)
of the CGD Authorization
Regulations which defined "authorized area"; it was evident from the
aforesaid definition that the specified geographical area for a CGD Network
would be comprised entirely or partially of a district or sub-division or block
or village or their combination and, further, an authorized area can also
include any other contiguous area; it may be possible that different areas of
the same district may be part of two or more separate authorized Gas;
similarly, a specified GA could be a culmination of two areas falling in
different districts; there was no requirement, either in the Regulations or
otherwise, that the entire district should necessarily fall only in one specified
area; there were various such GAs awarded by the Board in different times
wherein such combinations could be seen; and, in ACBD, the Board clearly
mentioned that the maps depicted the Geographical Areas and Charge Area.

34. The Board then extracted
Regulation 10(1)
read with Schedule D of
the CGD Authorization Regulations which related to the "Grant of
Authorization", and observed that the appellant as well as the 2nd Respondent
had accepted the terms and conditions of authorization of their respective
Gas; and the terms and conditions of the authorization letter were sacrosanct
in nature and could not be deviated.

35. The Board then referred to the map issued with Schedule-D which
contained the following table:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 24 of 184

Kanchipuram District Chennai and Trivullar
District
Charge NAME Charge NAME
Area ID Area ID
CA-01 Alandur CA-01 Chennai
CA-02 Chengalpattu CA-02 Ambattur
CA-03 Cheyyur CA-03 Gummidipoondi
CA-04 Kancheepuram CA-04 Maduravoyal
CA-05 Maduranthakam CA-05 Mathavaram
CA-06 Sholinganallur CA-06 Pallipattu
CA-07 Sripwerumbudur CA-07 Ponneri
CA-08 Tambaram CA-08 Poonamallee
CA-09 Tirukalkundram CA-09 Thiruvallur
CA-10 Tiruporur CA-10 Tiruttani
CA-11 Uthiramerur CA-11 Uthukkotai

Kanchipuram District Chennai and Trivullar
District
Total Population 39,98,252 Total Population 83,74,836
Total Household 10,060,245 Total Household 21,01,931

No. of charge 11 No. of charge 11

area area

36. It then observed that it was a matter of record that reference to the 2011
Census was made in the Bidding Document, for the limited purpose i.e. for
Bid Bond and Application Fee, as it required the Successful Bidder to submit
the Performance Bond as per the population in the 2011 Census of India.

37. The Board then referred to the ACBD issued at the time of 9th CGD
Bidding Round, and to certain clauses therein. It noted that Clause 1.1.3
thereof stipulated that it was the bidder's responsibility to obtain all
information related to the present gas supply availability and pipeline
connectivity and also existing customers, if any, in the specified geographical

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 25 of 184

area; Clause 2.1.1 thereof stipulated that the bidder was expected to
examine all the contents of the 'Application-cum-Bid document', including all
instructions, forms, terms and conditions and all the regulations of PNGRB.
The 'Application-cum-Bid document' together with all its annexures thereto
shall be considered to be read, understood and accepted by the bidder.
Failure to furnish any information required as per the 'Application-cum-Bid
document' or submission of Application-cum-Bid not complete in every
respect will be at bidder's risk and may result in the rejection of the
Application-cum-Bid; Clause 2.1.2 stipulated that the bidder shall carefully
study the geographical area and charge areas before submitting their
Application-cum-Bid; and Annexure 1(Map) stipulated that the bidder shall
carefully study the geographical area and charge areas before submitting
their Application-cum-Bid.

38. From the aforesaid mentioned provisions, the Board made the
following observations: (i) the appellant and the 2nd Respondent had
participated in the bidding process of the 9th CGD Bidding Round, wherein
the ACBD issued by the Board clearly stated that it was the responsibility of
the bidder to carefully study the GA and the charge areas before submitting
the bid; despite numerous opportunities granted by the Board to submit
objections, the appellant did not submit any objection with respect to the
same; (ii) the Board gave a tender to the vendor to prepare the map, wherein
the vendor was given the scope of work which included that (1) the
geographical data used by the vendor to prepare the maps should not be
more than 2 years old, complete geo-referencing had to be provided in the
supplied maps with standard cartographic symbology and colours; (2) All
NH/SH & major roads and area segments such as residential, commercial,
industrial, forest land / green area in urban /rural areas were to be indicated
in the maps with their names. The vendor was required to collect details of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 26 of 184

all administrative divisions such as Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal etc, (3)
submissions shall also be in the form of geo referenced .shp files projected
in WGS formats besides JPG and PDF formats along with 5 prints each of
A1 size. (iii) the primary obligation of the vendor was to provide a map of the
geographical area and, thereafter, provide population for the area so
depicted and not vice versa. Reference to the 2011 Census population
numbers find place only once, that too only in the context that the population
data of the area was to be provided and authenticated with the source
details; (iv) the tender document given to the vendor did not state that the
Board shall provide a map (let alone the Census 2011 map) to the vendor for
undertaking the exercise of preparing a customized map; and, in these
circumstances, the appellant's claim that the Board provided a map (either
the Census 2011 map of Kanchipuram revenue district or otherwise) to the
vendor for preparation of the GA map was entirely speculative and false.

39. The Board further observed that the appellant had attempted to
confuse two entirely different concepts, ie the GA boundary and the district
boundary, even though both serve completely different purposes. (I) the
demarcation of the boundary of a district is at the discretion of the Central/
State Government, and may undergo change with time for better
administration as and when the change is notified; in the case of GA of
Kanchipuram Districts also, the district of Kanchipuram has been split
between Kanchipuram district and Chengalpattu district post the award of
the GA to the appellant. On the contrary, the boundary of the GA remained
the same even if there was a split or merger of district(s) after the GA was
awarded to a CGD entity. In other words, the GA boundary is sacrosanct and
cannot be altered post the bid. This also becomes clear when both the
webhosted maps attached with the bidding document for GA No. 9.61
(Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts) and GA No. 9.62 (Kanchipuram Districts)
are juxtaposed with each other. Not only the bifurcated GA boundaries of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 27 of 184

respective maps seamlessly coalesce (without any overlap whatsoever) but
also reflect and match with the position of major landmarks in the area. (ii)
Reliance has been placed by the appellant, upon the communication
received from the Board on 23.09.2021, to claim that the maps of Survey of
India/ local authorities were relevant for ascertaining the GA boundary. On
observing the letter dated 23.09.2021, it is found that the appellant is
deliberately twisting the communication from the Board out of context. (iii)
the Board's letter dated 23.09.2021 to the Appellant, in response to their
request to provide "digital map, clearly showing the administrative
boundaries of the Kanchipuram District GA (ID9.61) for detailed planning and
development of infrastructure"; it was only in this context that the Board
replied that the district boundaries within the GA are considered to be as
defined by the Survey of India/ Office of the Registrar General and Census
Commissioner; the Board also clarified that, in case any confirmation was
required in relation to a district's boundary, the same shall be dealt directly
with the district administration or municipal corporation; thus, the Survey of
India/ Government maps were only meant for administrative purposes,
including to plan and make applications to local authorities, etc. (iv) until the
10th CGD Bidding Round, the GAs authorized by the Board had always been
accompanied by the map with geo-coordinates forming part of the
authorization letter. The concept of referring to the maps of Survey of India
has been introduced only from the 11th CGD Bidding Round. In the 11th CGD
Bidding Round, the bid document did not include the map of the GA which
was proposed to be awarded. Instead, the Board asked the bidders to
procure the maps for identification of district and charge area boundaries
from the Survey of India. The tender document for the 11th CGD Bidding
Round states: "The district boundary within this GA shall be as defined by
the respective local authority, such as district administration. Bidders may
procure the maps for identification of District and Charge Area boundaries

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 28 of 184

from Survey of India. However, the boundary should be duly vetted by district
administration for correctness on ground. Bidders are informed that any
dispute arising in relation to boundary shall be dealt directly with the District
Administration or Municipal Corporation. PNGRB shall have no role in
defining the boundary, except the nomenclature of that particular district and
charge areas falling in the GA."; it is clear that the Survey of India maps/ maps
issued by local authorities have no relevance in the present case i.e. for bids
awarded as part of the 9th CGD Bidding Round.

40. After referring to Clauses 2.2 to 2.2.2 of the Bid Document for the 9th
CGD Bidding round, which relates to clarifications of Application-cum-Bid
document, the Board observed that it was clear from the said clauses that
an opportunity was provided to all the bidders to clear their doubts, if any with
respect to the tender document which inter- alia included the map as well; a
visual inspection of the map for the GA of Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts
made it clear that the GA boundary of Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts
extended beyond the district boundary of Chennai and Tiruvallur; if one
referred to the GA map of Kanchipuram District as well, it would be clear that
GA Nos. 9.61 and 9.62 represent mutually exclusive areas and there is no
overlap whatsoever between the two; the appellant did not show any
prudence or proactiveness in seeking clarification from the Board regarding
the map, if it so required; (ii) in its judgment dated 17.02.2020, the Supreme
Court also recognized that the bidders were required to obtain information
on their own and were also required to carefully study the GA and the charge
area before submitting the bid; (iii) It is an undisputed fact that, vide Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette numbered as No. II/(1)/RDM/(B)/2018 dated
04.01.2018, some villages which formed part of Kanchipuram District was
shifted to Chennai District, before the launch of 9th CGD Bidding Round; if
the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the Board, at the time of 9th
CGD Bidding Round, then the GA authorized to the 2nd Respondent would

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 29 of 184

have also included the said shifted villages; however, at this stage, keeping
in mind the well settled law i.e. the Rule of Estoppel by Conduct which meant
that when a person through agreement, misrepresentation or negligence
makes the other person believe in certain things upon which the other person
had taken some action causing a change in their current situation, then the
first person cannot deny the veracity of the statements given by him in the
latter stages, the Board was not in a position to take cognizance of the
Official Gazette dated 04.01.2018. (iv) in view of the above, the Board was
of view that the 2nd Respondent was strictly operating within the co-ordinates
provided by the PNGRB through a GIS map as part of their authorization
letter. The 2nd Respondent had accepted the map for GA 9.61 during the
bidding round, and also as a part of their authorization letter; the appellant
had neither raised any query during the bidding process nor raised any
objections on the GIS map given to them as a part of their authorization
letter; the appellant had also not disputed the sanctity of the co-ordinates
given in the maps; the GIS map for GA No. 9.62 clearly demarcated the GA
boundary with pink line and the district boundaries with black line; it was
also clear that there was no overlap in maps for GA No. 9.61 and 9.62; it was
also clear that the concept of survey of India Map was introduced by the
Board from the 11th CGD bidding round, and the same cannot be applicable
to the GAs awarded during the 9th CGD Bidding Round; and, thus, this issue
was decided against the appellant.

41. On Issue No. 3, the Board observed that, in view of the afore-said
deliberations, they were holding that the subject disputed area did not fall
under the authorized area of the 2nd Respondent; hence, the CNG Station
No. 1 to 5 were not under the GA of the appellant; and, therefore, this issue
was decided against the appellant.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 30 of 184

42. The Board summarized its conclusions holding that the concept of
Survey of India Map was introduced by the Board from the 11th CGD bidding
round, and the same could not be made applicable to the GAs awarded
during the 9th CGD Bidding Round; the 2nd Respondent was strictly operating
within the coordinates provided by the PNGRB through a GIS map as part of
their authorization letter.

43. In view of these facts, the submission made by the parties, and the
observations made, the Board held that the instant Complaint merited
dismissal being devoid of merits. The interim order also stood vacated.

IV. RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

44. Elaborate submissions, both oral and written, were put forth by Sri.
Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant,
Sri Rahul Sagar Sahai, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent-PNGRB, and Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent. It is convenient to examine these
rival contentions under different heads.

V. BELATED FILING OF COMPLAINT:

45. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
2nd Respondent, would submit that, after almost 4 years from the date of its
authorization i.e. 26.09.2018, the appellant filed a complaint against the 2nd
Respondent before the PNGRB in April 2022, inter alia, alleging that the 2nd
Respondent was undertaking development of 19 Compressed Natural Gas
("CNG") stations within the areas specified to be a part of GA No. 9.61; as
the complainant, the onus was on the appellant to show that the disputed
CNG stations are located in GA No. 9.61; however, the appellant has not
proved or shown even once the exact location of the CNG stations till date
either on the GA map or in the .shp file provided by the PNGRB; instead,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 31 of 184

the appellant is causing confusion by introducing irrelevant considerations
and attempting to re-open the bid process; an attempt has been made to
turn a commercial dispute about the location of CNG stations into a litigation
about the process of determination of a GA; in any case, the 2nd
Respondent has unequivocally demonstrated, using the GA map as well
as the .shp files given by the PNGRB, the exact location of the CNG
stations, and that all the disputed 19 CNG stations fall squarely in the GA
awarded to them; PNGRB dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant,
vide its order dated 22.12.2022, holding that the "subject disputed area
does not fall under the authorized area of the Respondent (ie the
appellant)"; the PNGRB held that the 2nd Respondent was "strictly operating
within the coordinates provided by the PNGRB through a GIS map as a
part of their authorization letter"; PNGRB further noted that the appellant
had accepted the map for GA No. 9.61 during bidding, and also as a
part of their authorization letter, and no query or objection with respect to
the map was raised at any point; and, further, the sanctity of the co-
ordinates given in the map were also not disputed by the appellant.

46. This issue, regarding belated filing of the complaint, was considered
by the PNGRB in the impugned Order dated 22.12.2022, and it was
observed that bids were invited on 12.04.2018 for the 9th CGD Bidding
Round for various Geographical areas, including the Geographical Areas of
Chennai- Tiruvallur, and Kanchipuram Districts; the 2nd Respondent was
granted authorization by the PNGRB, vide letter dated 07.09.2018, for
development of CGD Network in the GA of Chennai and Tiruvallur
Districts, the terms and conditions of which were accepted by the 2nd
Respondent on 11.09.2018, and the said authorization was amended in
favour of the 2nd Respondent vide letter dated 01.09.2020; the appellant
was granted authorization vide letter dated 26.09.2018 for Kanchipuram GA,
and the said authorization was amended in favour of the Complainant vide

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 32 of 184

letter dated 01.09.2020; a complaint was filed by the Appellant on 11.04.2022
against the 2nd Respondent; a press release was issued by the Board on
14.09.2018, identifying successful bidders for the 86 authorized GAs; and
this was subjected to challenge before this Tribunal in
'Adani Gas Limited vs
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board & Anr.' (Appeal No.

292 of
2018), and 'IMC Limited vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board &
Anr.' (Appeal No.
323 of 2018).

47. On Issue No. 1, ie whether the complaint was time barred as per the
provision of
Section 25
of the PNGRB Act, the Board observed that, as per

Section 25
of the Act, the complaint had to be filed within 60 days from the
date on which any act or conduct constituting a contravention took place;
various communications were exchanged between the appellant and the 2nd
Respondent which lasted up to 22.02.2022 when the 2nd Respondent
declined to stop the activities carried out in Kanchipuram District; the
appellant had also contended that it came to know of the activities of the 2nd
Respondent in Kanchipuram District in July 2021; since then
communications were exchanged; the opening and operating of the Subject
CNG Stations would tantamount to arising of a continuing cause of action,
and there was breach and violation in the authorized area of the appellant,
which continued till date.

48. The Board expressed its inclination to agree with the submission of the
appellant for the reason that the averments contained in the complaint stated
that continuous contravention was taking place in the area authorized to the
Complainant; and, thus, this issue was decided in favour of the appellant and
against the 2nd Respondent.

A. ANALYSIS:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 33 of 184

49.
Section 25
of the PNGRB Act, 2006 relates to the filing of complaints.

Section 25(1)
enables a complaint to be filed before the Board by any person
in respect of matters relating to entities on any matter arising out of the
provisions of the
PNGRB Act
.
Section 25(2)
requires every complaint, made
under sub-section (1), to be filed within sixty days from the date on which
any act or conduct constituting a contravention took place and shall be in
such form and shall be accompanied by such fee as may be provided by
Regulations. The proviso to
Section 25(2)
enables the Board to entertain a
complaint after expiry of the said period if it is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within that period.

50. As noted hereinabove, the Board has held this issue in favour of the
Appellant and against the 2nd Respondent, and the present Appeal has been
filed not by the 2nd Respondent, but by the Appellant herein. While the 2nd
Respondent may well be entitled to sustain the order of the PNGRB on
grounds which were held against it by the Board, in view of the
Order 41
Rule 22 CPC
, it must also be borne in mind that it is only if this Tribunal were
to be satisfied, that the reasons which weighed with the PNGRB in rejecting
this contention of the 2nd Respondent is ex facie illegal, would interference
be justified.

51. More than one year four months after the Appellant accepted the terms
and condition of authorization vide its letter dated 20.02.2020, Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited informed the Appellant on 17.06.2021 that
discussions were in progress with the 2nd Respondent for installation of
compressed natural gas stations in Chennai. In response thereto, the
Appellant informed HPCL that some of these petrol stations fell under their
GA. In response, HPCL informed them by e-mail dated 21-06-2021 that the
2nd Respondent was contending that some of these petrol stations fell in their
GA. Thereafter, correspondent ensued between the Appellant and the 2nd

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 34 of 184

Respondent on 07-07-2021 and 08-07-2021. The Appellant requested the
Board, vide its letter dated 17.08.2021, to provide GIS based Geographical
Area map which was based on the Survey of India Map and informed them
of the agencies which had been finalised to provide the map, so that the
Appellant would procure the same from such agencies with due permission
of the Board, and that they be provided with the digital map of the subject
GA. The Board thereafter, vide its letter dated 23.09.2021, informed the
appellant that the GIS map, indicating the respective GA area and
boundaries, had already been provided along with the authorisation letter.
The Appellant then approached the District Collector, Kanchipuram, vide its
letter dated 24.09.2021, seeking a copy of the District Map of Kanchipuram
district in accordance with the Census of India, 2011. On receipt thereof, the
Appellant, vide letter dated 19.10.2021, informed the Oil Marketing
Companies of the details of the boundaries of their GA contending that the
CNG stations set up by the 2nd Respondent in the subject GA were in
violation of the
PNGRB Act
and the authorization vested with the Appellant.

52. On 19.01.2022, the Appellant informed the Board of the error which
had occurred in the area mentioned in the authorisation letter dated
26.10.2018, mentioning the total authorised area of GA 9.61 as 6936.50
square kilometres instead of 4483 square kilometres, and that it needed
correction. The Board, vide the letter dated 31.01.2022, carried out the
necessary corrections.

53. Vide letter dated 31.01.2022, the Appellant informed the 2nd
Respondent that they were attempting to set up CNG dispensing facilities in
the subject GA. They were requested to stop construction activities
undertaken by them at various CNG stations. In response thereto, the 2nd
Respondent, vide letter dated 22.02.2022, informed the Appellant that the
Chennai GA was spread over certain parts of Kanchipuram as per the map

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 35 of 184

web-hosted by the Board during the bidding process, and the activities
carried out by the 2nd Respondent were in compliance with the geo-
coordinate boundary of Chennai GA. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a
complaint before the Board on 11.04.2022.

54. It is clear therefore that the delay on the part of the Appellant, in
approaching the Board under
Section 25
of the PNGRB Act by way of its
complaint, was neither wilful nor deliberate. The facts narrated hereinabove
do show that the Appellant initially endeavoured to have the issue amicably
resolved with the 2nd Respondent, and it is only when it failed to do so did it
approach the Board by filing the complaint. Further, In the impugned order,
the Board has noted that various communications were exchanged between
the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent up to 22.02.2022 when the 2nd
Respondent declined to stop the activities being carried out by them in
Kanchipuram District. The Appellant has also contended that it became
aware of the activities of the 2nd Respondent in Kanchipuram District only in
July 2021, since then communications were exchanged, and the 2nd
Respondent continuing operating the subject CNG Stations would
tantamount to the arising of a continuing cause of action as there was a
continuing breach and violation in their authorized area. It is in such
circumstances that the Board decided this issue in favour of the Appellant
holding that the averments in the complaint alleged continuous
contravention was taking place in the area authorized to the Appellant.

55. While the proviso to
Section 25(2)
no doubt enables the PNGRB to
entertain a complaint after expiry of the period of 60 days, if it is satisfied that
there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the said period,
we are satisfied that, in the light of the above-referred facts and the
conclusion of the PNGRB that the cause of action was continuing, the
Appellant cannot be said to have filed the complaint belatedly.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 36 of 184

56. In this context it is necessary to understand what constitutes a
continuing cause of action. A continuing cause of action is a cause of action
which arises from the repetition of acts or omissions of the same kind as that
for which the action was brought. If once a cause of action arises, and the
acts complained of are continuously repeated, the cause of action continues
and goes on de die in diem. If there is a connection between the series of
acts before and after the action was brought, and they are repeated in
succession, they become a continuing cause of action. They are an
assertion of the same claim, and a continuance of the same alleged right.
(Hole v. Chard Union [(1894) 1 Ch D 293 : 63 LJ Ch 469 : 70 LT 52;

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Amritsar v. Suresh Seth
, (1981) 2 SCC

790).

57. It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which
creates a continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act
responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury. If a wrongful act
is of such a character that the injury caused by it itself continues, then the
act constitutes a continuing wrong. (
Balkrishna Savalram Pujari v. Shree
Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan
: AIR 1959 SC 798;
Commissioner of
Wealth Tax, Amritsar v. Suresh Seth
, (1981) 2 SCC 790).

58. The true principle appears to be that where the wrong complained of
is the omission to perform a positive duty requiring a person to do a certain
act, the test to determine whether such a wrong is a continuing one is
whether the duty in question is one which requires him to continue to do that
act. Breach of a covenant to keep the premises in good repair, breach of a
continuing guarantee, obstruction to a right of way, obstruction to the right of
a person to the unobstructed flow of water, refusal by a man to maintain his
wife and children whom he is bound to maintain under law and the carrying
on of mining operations or the running of a factory without complying with

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 37 of 184

the measures intended for the safety and well-being of workmen may be
illustrations of continuing breaches or wrongs giving rise to a civil liability de
die in diem. (
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Amritsar v. Suresh Seth
,
(1981) 2 SCC 790).

59. In case, the Appellant's contention that the subject CNG stations fall
within their authorised GA is held to merit acceptance, then the continuing
operation of the CNG Stations by the 2nd Respondent in the appellant's GA
would be a continuing violation of the appellant's authorisation resulting in a
continuing cause of action. In which case, the complaint cannot be said to
have been filed belatedly, since
Section 25(2)
requires every complaint,
made under sub-section (1), to be filed within sixty days from the date on
which any act or conduct constituting a contravention took place. As the act
or conduct of the 2nd Respondent, which resulted in a contravention taking
place, continues even as on date, the sixty' day limitation period cannot be
said to have expired till date. We are satisfied, therefore, that this contention
urged on behalf of the 2nd Respondent necessitates rejection.

VI. EARLIER LITIGATION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

60. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, would submit that an appeal (Appeal No. 292 of 2018) was filed
before this Tribunal by Adani Gas Limited challenging, inter alia, the decision
of the PNGRB to award GA No. 9.61 and GA No. 9.62 to the appellant and
the 2nd Respondent respectively; the primary question in this appeal was
whether a bidder could have quoted a bid to connect domestic piped-natural
gas connections less than 2% or more than 100% of the total households
existing as per the Census of 2011, even though this criteria was not
mentioned in the Bid Documents; for this purpose, it was imperative to
decide the relevance of the Census of 2011 data in the bidding process
conducted by PNGRB; on 28.02.2019, this Tribunal pronounced its judgment

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 38 of 184

in the appeal; in the appeal preferred thereagainst in
Adani Gas Limited v.
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.

3992 of 2019; (2020) 4 SCC 529, the Supreme Court upheld the award of
GA Nos. 9.61 and 9.62; the findings of the Supreme Court are summarized
as (a) the Census 2011 figures were only utilized to peg the net-worth
requirement and value of the performance bond to be submitted by a bidder;
and where a specific linkage was sought, with reference to the 2011 Census
data, a clear and categorical provision was made to that effect; the Supreme
Court then analysed why
Regulation 7
of the 2008 Regulations did not
provide for a link with the Census of 2011; (b) On the Bid Document, the
Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Bid Document in detail and
held that merely because the map given with the Bid Document contained a
reference to population and household figures on the basis of the Census of
2011 did not mean that the Census of 2011 was the basis of submission for
bids; thereafter, the Supreme Court also reiterated the principle that a bidder
could not have been disqualified on the basis of a criterion which was not
notified, and of which the bidders had no knowledge, as that would be
arbitrary and in violation of
Article 14;
the key takeaways from the judgment
of the Supreme Court can, thus, be summarized as follows: (a) the Census
of 2011 has no relevance, except to peg the performance bond and net-
worth, with respect to the 9th Bidding Round; (b) under the Bid Document,
the bidders were required to obtain information about the present gas supply
availability, the pipeline connectivity and the existing customers in the GA;
bidders were also required to examine the contents of the Bid Document
including instructions, terms and conditions and regulations of the Board; the
data given in the map (population, household etc.) was, at best, a
compendium of the latest official record of the GA, and (c) a criterion which
was not notified to the bidders at the time of bidding (i.e. not specified in the
Bid Document) cannot be applied as that would be a violation of
Article 14.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 39 of 184

A. JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN
ADANI GAS
LTD. V. PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS REGULATORY
BOARD
, (2020) 4 SCC 529:

61.
In
Adani Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board
,
(2020) 4 SCC 529, the Supreme Court noted that, in 2018, the Petroleum
and Natural Gas Regulatory Board ("the Board") had conducted the ninth
round of bidding for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks ("CGD
Networks"); on 14-9-2018, a press release was placed on the Board's
website notifying details of the successful bidders in various geographical
areas (GAs); and the contest in the batch of appeals before it had arisen
over the grant of authorisation for laying, building, operating or expanding
CGD networks, among others, in the following GAs: (i) GA 61 --
Kanchipuram District; and (ii) GA 62 -- Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts; two
appeals were instituted thereagainst before APTEL, one by Adani Gas Ltd
and the other by IMC Ltd. Adani Gas Ltd had preferred the appeal against
the decision of the Board to award LoIs, in respect of three GAs -- 51
(Puducherry District), 61 (Kanchipuram District), and 62 (Chennai &
Tiruvallur Districts), on the ground that the successful bids were beyond the
unreasonably high limit adopted by the Board. By their separate judgments,
the Chairperson and Member Technical (Petroleum and Natural Gas)
rendered divergent findings, following which the Chairperson directed that
the proceedings in the two appeals be placed before the judicial member.
The judicial member recused from hearing the appeals on 7-3-2019. This
led to the institution of appeals before the Supreme Court which, in the
exercise of its powers under
Article 142
of the Constitution, transferred the
proceedings before Aptel to itself in order to bring finality to the dispute.

62. After taking note of Regulations 5, 5(6), 6, 7 and 9 of the 2008
Regulations, the Supreme Court observed that, under
Regulation 7
, the
Board, while considering proposals for authorisation, shall tabulate and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 40 of 184

compare all financial bids which meet the minimum eligibility criteria in
accordance with the bidding criteria set out; the Table set out in
Regulation
7(1)(a)
provided for the tabulation of all eligible financial bids on the basis of
five parameters and the weightage to be ascribed to each of them; the first
criterion is the "lowness" of the transportation rate for CGD computed in
rupees per million for a British Thermal Unit, and the weightage ascribed to
this criterion is 10%; the second criterion is the "lowness" of the
transportation rate for CNG expressed in rupees per kilogram, and the
weightage ascribed to this criterion is 10%; the third criterion is the
"highness" of the number of CNG stations to be installed within eight contract
years from the date of authorization, and the weightage ascribed to this
parameter is 20%; the fourth criterion is the "highness" of the number of
domestic piped natural gas connections to be achieved within eight contract
years from the date of authorization, and the weightage ascribed to this
criterion is 50%; the fifth criterion is the "highness" of the inch-kilometre of
steel pipeline to be laid within eight contract years from the date of
authorization, and the weightage ascribed to this parameter is 10%.

63. The Supreme Court then observed that
Regulation 7(1)(b)
sets out a
year-wise work programme indicating the progress which must be achieved
by the successful bidder every year during the course of eight contract years
from the date of authorization; under
Regulation 7(3)
, a bidding entity with
the highest composite score, in terms of the criteria contained in sub-
regulation (1), is to be declared as the successful bidder; the illustration
thereto shows that the entity, which has quoted the highest number of PNG
domestic connections to be achieved, is allotted a score of 100%; the entities
below the highest were to be assigned a score in relation to the first entity
on a proportionate basis; under
Regulation 9
, the grant of an authorisation
is to be issued to a successful entity after it furnishes a performance bond,
and the quantum of the performance bond is based on the population of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 41 of 184

GA as determined with reference to the Census data of 2011; from an
analysis of the CGD Authorisation Regulations, it becomes evident that the
2011 Census figures have been utilised to peg the net worth requirement in

Regulation 5(6)(e)
and the value of the performance bond to be submitted
to the Board post authorisation in
Regulation 9
; and, significantly,
Regulation
, which provides a Table specifying the five bidding criteria to evaluate
competing bids, does not link the said criteria with the census figures of
2011.

64. The Supreme Court noted that, on 12-4-2018, the Board had initiated
the bidding process for authorising entities to lay, build, operate or expand
CGD networks for the ninth round, and bids were invited by means of an
application-cum-bid-document for each GA; the bidding process covered
various GAs, including those of (i) GA 61 -- Kanchipuram District; and (ii)
GA 62 -- Chennai-Tiruvallur; on 31-5-2018, Addendum 1 to the bid
document was issued by the Board; Clause 14.2, inserted as a result of
Addendum 1, clarified that, what should be considered to be the level of
"unreasonably high" or "unreasonably low" quotes, shall be decided by
Board at the time of bid evaluation on a case-to-case basis after considering
the relevant factors' in terms of the said stipulation; the Board clarified that
the determination of an unreasonably high or low quote would be made by
the Board at the time of bid evaluation on a case-to-case basis after
considering the relevant factors; on 23-7-2018, a note ("Board Note") was
moved for the approval of the members of the Board with a view to
encourage serious bidders and to avoid unrealistic/unreasonable bidding in
terms of Clause 4.4.1 of the bid document; the Board Note provided for the
reasonability of bidding parameters; the Board Note was approved by the
members of the Board including the Chairperson; and, between 24-7-2018
and 18-8-2018, the financial bids submitted by the bidders for various GAs
were opened by the Board.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 42 of 184

65. The Supreme Court observed that the Board Note of 23-7-2018
adopted the Census 2011 data, on the total number of households, as the
basis for computing the minimum and maximum limits for the purpose of
determining unreasonably low or unreasonably high quotes; the Board Note
stipulated that 2% of the total households in terms of the Census 2011 data
would be regarded as the minimum quote; anything below 2% would be
considered unreasonably low; similarly, on the upper end of the spectrum,
the Board Note proposed that 100% of the total households in terms of the
Census 2011 data would be regarded as the maximum; a quotation beyond
this upper limit would be construed to be unreasonably high; and two
features of the Board Note dated 23-7-2018 must be noted - first, the Board
Note was generated after the last date for the submission of bids, and
second, the Board Note was an internal document of the Board which was
not notified to the bidders.

66. The Supreme Court observed that the first aspect, which formed the
subject-matter of the controversy, was the relevance of the 2011 Census
data in the bidding process; the primary plank on which the appellants
contend that the 2011 Census data was relevant to the bidding process was
the reference to population/household figures derived from the 2011 Census
data in the map annexed to the bid document; it was contended that (i) the
map attached to the bid document did not only describe the land area but
also the population and households comprised in it, (ii) the rationale for this
was that the authorisation is to lay the CGD network in a defined land area
and to service the defined households in that area, (iii) the figures for
population and number of households in the map attached to the bid
document were drawn from the 2011 Census, (iv) in several areas out of
the 86 GAs which were a part of the ninth round of bidding, certain parts of
the GAs were excluded from the zone of authorization, (v) whenever certain
parts of the GAs were excluded from the zone of authorisation, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 43 of 184

population/household number was proportionally reduced to reflect the
population/households as per the reduced area. Examples of the above are
Surendranagar (GA 8); and Medchal-Ranga Reddy (GA 72); (vi) in GA 72,
Medchal-Ranga Reddy: (a) the original map attached to the bid document
showed the entire district with a corresponding number of households of
13,47,118 according to the 2011 Census, (b) the bid document was
amended to exclude the area in which an existing entity was already laying
a CGD network as a result of which not only was the land area reduced but
even the number of households was reduced to 4,56,557, (c) Torrent Gas
Pvt. Ltd., which was the highest bidder for the reduced area, had bid
10,05,300 PNG connections, which worked out to 74.6% of the original
number of households (13,47,118) and 220% of the reduced number of
households (4,56,557), (d) the Board, at its meeting on 29-8-2018, rejected
the H1 bidder for GA 72 on the ground that the bid of 220% of the households
was unreasonably high, (e ) the bid of the H1 bidder for GA 72 was in fact
99% of the estimated households for 2026 but was yet rejected as the
"unreasonably high" norm was with reference to the 2011 Census, and not
100% of the 2026 estimate because, if it was the latter, the H1 bidder would
have been declared to be successful, (f) the map annexed to the bid
document depicted not only the land area but also the population/number of
households which were intrinsically inter-twined in the bid parameters, (g)
clause 1.1.3 of the bid document mandated bidders to look at the "existing
population", hence, it was incorrect to suggest that the bidders had to keep
in mind the population in the GAs in 2018, and, on the contrary, Clause 1.1.1
required bidders to bear in mind the population/households as given in the
map annexed to the bid document.

67. The Supreme Court observed that the submission urged on behalf of
the appellants, in regard to the relevance of the 2011 Census data, must first
and foremost be assessed in the context of the CGD Authorisation

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 44 of 184

Regulations as amended on 6-4-2018; the Regulations postulated that
bidders must submit both technical and financial bids; the procedure
specified in
Regulation 5
applied to an invitation by the Board for laying,
building, operating or expanding a CDG network;
Regulation 5(6)
required
the fulfilment of minimum eligibility criteria; for a technical bid to pass muster,
the minimum eligibility criteria required the bidder to be qualified both with
reference to technical and financial parameters; this was evident from

Regulation 5(6)
under which the Board was to scrutinise the bids of only
those entities which fulfilled the minimum eligibility criteria; the minimum
eligibility criteria included the technical capability of the bidding entity to (i)
lay and build; and (ii) operate and maintain a CGD network; both of them
were defined with reference to the qualifying criteria; besides the technical
criteria, the minimum eligibility requirement under
Regulation 5(6)(e)

incorporated the financial ability to execute the project and to operate and
maintain it in the authorised area; the financial criteria were defined with
reference to the minimum net worth of the bidding entity; the net worth
required was dependent on the population of the GA under the 2011 Census;
the minimum net worth required was specifically defined with reference to
the 2011 Census figures of population for the GA; the bidding entity was also
required to submit a bid bond in the form of a performance bond guarantee;
and the quantum of the guarantee was dependent on the population of the
GA.

68. The Supreme Court further observed that
Regulation 7
required the
Board to tabulate all financial bids which met the minimum eligibility criteria,
in accordance with the bidding criteria specified in the table; the table
incorporated in the Regulation provided five-fold criteria for the tabulation
and comparison of financial bids; significantly, the bidding criteria in

Regulation 7
are not linked to the 2011 Census figures; there were two
significant facets of
Regulation 7
: (i) the absence of a linkage of the projected

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 45 of 184

number of domestic PNG connections with the 2011 Census data; and (ii)
the absence of a cap or ceiling on the "highness" norm both in relation to the
third and the fourth criteria; the provisions contained in the 2008 CGD
Authorisation Regulations, as amended on 6-4-2018, indicated that where a
specific linkage was sought with reference to the 2011 Census data, a clear
and categorical provision was made to that effect; such provisions were
found in regard to the financial capability of a bidder as part of the minimum
eligibility criteria in
Regulation 5(6)(e)
, and the extent of the performance
bond in
Regulation 5(6)(h)
; absent a condition in
Regulation 7
, linking the
"highness" of the number of PNG connections to be achieved within eight
years from the date of authorisation with the 2011 Census data, it would be
contrary to basic principles of interpretation to read such a restriction into the
CGD Authorisation Regulations; a conditionality which had not been
incorporated in
Regulation 7
could not be introduced as a matter of
construction; and the Court must first and foremost read the Regulation in
accordance with its plain and natural meaning.

69. The Supreme Court then observed that there was evidently a reason
why
Regulation 7
did not introduce a ceiling or provide for a linkage with the
Census data of 2011; consumers or users, as the case may be, in a CGD
network broadly comprised of four categories, namely: (i) Domestic; (ii)
Commercial; (iii) Industrial; and (iv) Vehicular; the Board had submitted with
justification that, in a model of cross-subsidisation, the viability of the project
had to be perceived from a twenty-five-year perspective; gains in one
category of users could offset the losses in another category; the CGD
Authorisation Regulations were intended to subserve the object of
establishing the infrastructure necessary for setting up an operational CGD
network; in creating the infrastructure, the successful entity was
contractually bound to set up a project for the future; the infrastructure so
created would be of service to consumers or, as the case may be, users;

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 46 of 184

infrastructural projects catered to future needs could legitimately be forward
looking; it was from this perspective that, except for the tariff in the first two
bidding criteria of
Regulation 7
(the transportation rates for CGD and CNG),
no ceiling was provided by the Board for the criteria set out in
Regulation 7
;
more particularly,
Regulation 7(3)
provided for a mandate to tabulate and
compare the bids of all entities which had met the minimum eligibility criteria
upon their qualifying in a competitive bidding process; the Regulations did
not contemplate the disqualification of a bidder with reference to a norm
which would limit a bid to 100% of the population figures provided by the
2011 Census data; and for the Board to stipulate an absolute norm to that
effect, when it has not been specifically incorporated in the Regulations,
would have rendered the decision-making process vulnerable to a challenge
on the ground that it was not consistent with
Regulation 7
.

70. The Supreme Court then held that Clause 1.1.1 of the bid document.
incorporated a reference to the GA as depicted in the map set out in
Annexure 1, for which the Board was inviting bids for the grant of an
authorisation to develop a CGD network; the main plank of the submissions
of the appellants was that the map contained a reference to population and
household figures on the basis of the 2011 Census; clause 1.1.3 placed the
responsibility on the bidder to obtain information about the present gas
supply availability, the pipeline connectivity and the existing customers in the
GA; significantly, the scope of work in Clause 1.2 required bidding entities
"to lay, build, operate or expand the CDG networks" to meet the requirement
of natural gas" in domestic, commercial and industrial segments including
natural gas in the vehicular segment in the said geographical area to be
authorised"; bidders were required under Clause 2.1.1 to examine the
contents of the bid document including instructions, terms and conditions
and regulations of the Board; the bidder was required to carefully study the
GA and the charge area before submitting the bid; in other words, bidders

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 47 of 184

were on notice of the actions required to be taken to implement the
Regulations; the bid document necessarily had to be in conformity with the
CGD Authorisation Regulations; the map, at best, was a compendium of the
latest official record of the GA; the map did not dictate how the number of
domestic PNG connections was to be calculated; there was no such
indication particularly in Clause 1 of the bid document where the map was
referenced; the mere attachment of a map to the bid document would not
result in the imposition of conditions of eligibility or qualification; these have
been provided in the Regulations which have a statutory character; and the
depiction of the GA in a map attached to the bid document did not override
the specific requirements of the bidding criteria as defined in
Regulation 7
.

71. With respect to the appellants' contention, that the decision which was
taken in the form of the Board Note dated 23-7-2018 had categorically
stipulated a range of 2% to 100% of the number of households as per the
2011 Census as the minimum/maximum threshold to judge the
reasonableness of the bids and, despite this, the decision of the Board dated
10-8-2018 virtually reversed the earlier decision recorded in the Board Note
of 23-7-2018 thereby tainting the decision-making process with arbitrariness,
the Supreme Court summarized the contentions as under: (I) the 2 to 100%
criterion based on the 2011 Census data was the basis on which the bids for
79 out of 86 GAs were evaluated; (ii) in respect of the bids for four GAs (out
of the remaining seven GAs) where the highest bidder had bid a number of
PNG connections below 2% of the number provided by the 2011 Census,
those four bidders were furnished with an opportunity to improve their bids
and match the 2% threshold; (iii) it was only for the three bidders, with the
highest composite scores in GAs 51, 61 and 62, that the bids were evaluated
with reference to the projected number of households in 2026; and (iv) for
example, in GA 62 (Chennai-Tiruvallur), there were ten bidders of whom the
bids of nine were evaluated with reference to the 2011 Census data on the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 48 of 184

number of households, whereas the bid of one bidder (Torrent Gas Pvt. Ltd.)
had been evaluated with reference to the number of projected households
in 2026.

72. The Supreme Court held that the CGD Authorisation Regulations, as
amended on 6-4-2018, revealed that the Regulations did not contain any
stipulation determining a range of 2 to 100% of the number of households
under the 2011 Census as the criterion to evaluate bids; the Regulations did
not link the "highness" factor of domestic PNG connections to the 2011
Census data; in Clause 4.4.1 of the bid document, the Board reserved to
itself the right to reject any unreasonably high or low bid; in Addendum 1 to
the bid document, the Board clarified to all prospective bidders that the
evaluation of whether a bid was unreasonably low or high would be
conducted on a case-to-case basis at the time of bid evaluation; if the Board
Note of 23-7-2018 were to be construed in the manner in which the
appellants had urged, the automatic disqualification of bidders based on a
criterion introduced by the Board Note would raise serious doubts about its
fairness and legality; this was because the Board Note was not notified to
bidders as a basis for evaluation of bids before the date for the submission
of the bids had closed; to disqualify a bidder on the basis of a criterion which
was not notified and of which bidders had no knowledge would be arbitrary
and would constitute an infraction of
Article 14;
the Board was thus correct
in determining that the automatic disqualification of a bid on the basis of a
criterion specified in the Board Note (which was never notified to the bidders)
would not be "legally correct"; hence, it would be reasonable to interpret the
Board Note dated 23-7-2018 as being the formulation of a guideline for the
Board; as a guideline in the process of evaluation, the decision taken by the
Board on 23-7-2018 was not to the effect that every bid below 2% or above
100% would necessarily stand disqualified; consistently with the use of the
word "may be", the decision of the Board meant that the power which the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 49 of 184

Board reserved to itself in Clause 4.4.1 could be invoked if it came to the
conclusion that the bid had not been justified to be reasonable; in other
words, the breaching of the range of 2 to 100% was a trigger for the Board
to scrutinise the bid and determine whether the power under Clause 4.4.1
should be invoked; hence, the course of action which the Board followed of
calling upon the bidders with the highest composite scores in GAs 51, 61
and 62 to justify their bids in terms of their reasonableness could not be
faulted; on the contrary, if the Board had rejected these bids solely on the
ground that they were above the limit of 100% of households under the 2011
Census data, the decision would have been seriously flawed for having
applied a criterion which was not a part of the Regulations, was not
embodied in the bid document and. in any event, was not notified to bidders
before they had submitted their bids; evidently, for the purpose of projecting
the number of PNG connections within a GA, it was the number of
households and not the overall population that was relevant as each
household was unlikely to have more than one PNG connection; moreover,
as neither the CGD Regulations nor the bid document required the number
of projected households to be calculated on the basis of the 2011 Census
data, the decision of the Board to accept the justification provided by the
bidders could not be attacked on the ground that the figures provided did not
strictly match the numbers extrapolated from the 2011 Census data; the
power granted to the Board under Clause 14.2 of the bid document was an
enabling clause that allowed the Board to apply its mind to a quote and
determine its reasonableness; the quotes submitted by all bidders with
respect to the projected number of households in 2026 were admittedly
estimates; similarly, the Board's own determination of a baseline for
comparing the reasonableness of various quotes was also an estimate;
therefore, the Board's use of the baseline figure and its consequent
acceptance of the reasonability of a quote could not be faulted because it

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 50 of 184

did not strictly adhere to one particular methodology of arriving at a number
of projected households unless the methodology used was arbitrary, having
no correlation with the result sought to be achieved; on a bare construction
of the Board Note dated 23-7-2018 and the fact that the Board Note was
formulated after the last date for the submission of bids, the Board Note did
not set out absolute criteria for disqualification of bids; the agenda note dated
9th August merely tabled a proposal to apply the criteria of 2 to 100% range,
but the Board did not subsequently adopt this course of action, a decision
within its power and indeed necessary to preserve the integrity of the bidding
process; having established that the Board Note was not an absolute binding
criteria, and the Tribunal was approached only with respect to GAs 51, 61
and 62, the Board's treatment of other GAs could not be decisive in
determining the legality of the authorisations granted in GAs 51, 61 and 62,
especially where the Board's actions in respect of the other GAs had not
been independently challenged; the assessment of the reasonability of the
bid was a matter solely between the highest bidder and the Board; such an
assessment would not alter the scores of the highest bidder vis-à-vis the
scores of the other bidders; the sole question was whether the highest
bidder's quote was reasonable, and the power to determine such
reasonability resided solely with the Board by virtue of Clause 14.2 of the bid
document; and, thus, the presence and hearing of other bidders was not
necessary.

B. REGULATION 7 OF THE 2008 REGULATIONS:

73.
In
Adani Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board
,
(2020) 4 SCC 529, while the Supreme Court was no doubt examining the
grant of authorization for GA 9.61- Kanchipuram District and GA 9.62 --
Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts, which are also the subject matter of the
present appeal, the appeal before the Supreme Court was in challenge to

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 51 of 184

the validity of the decision of the Board, to award LoIs for these GAs, on the
ground that the successful bids were beyond the unreasonably high limit
adopted by the Board. Since the scope and ambit of
Regulation 7
of the
2008 Regulations fell for consideration in the afore-said judgement, it is
useful to note what the said Regulation provides.

74. The 2008 Authorisation Regulations, notified initially on 19.03.2018
and as amended on 06.04.2018, are the Regulations applicable to the
present case.
Regulation 7
thereof relates to the bidding criteria and reads
thus:-

"7. Bidding criteria.

(1) The Board, while considering the proposal for authorization, shall
tabulate and compare all financial bids meeting the minimum
eligibility criteria, as per the bidding criteria given below, namely:-

[1(a) The Board, while considering the proposal for authorisation,
shall tabulate and compare all financial bids meeting the minimum
eligibility criteria, as per the bidding criteria specified below,
namely:-

Sl. Bidding Criteria Weightag Explanation
No. e (%)
1 Lowness of 10 Bidder is required to quote
transportation rate transportation rate for
for CGD - in rupees CGD only for the first
per million British contract year which shall
Thermal Unit not be less than Rs. 30
(Rs./MMBTU) /MMBTU. Rates for the
subsequent contract years

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 52 of 184

shall be derived
considering the quoted
rate and escalation as per
Note.

2 Lowness of 10 Bidder is required to quote
transportation rate transportation rate for
for CNG -in rupees CNG only for the first
per kilo gram (Rs. / contract year which shall
kg) not be less than Rs. 2 /kg.
Rates for the subsequent
contract years shall be
derived considering the
quoted rate and escalation
as per Note.
3 Highness of 20 -
number of [CNG
Stations] (online
and daughter
booster stations) to
be installed within 8
contract years from
the date of
authorization
4 Highness of number 50 -
of domestic piped
natural gas
connections to be
achieved within 8
contract years from

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 53 of 184

the date of
authorization

5 Highness of inch- 10 -

kilometer of steel
pipeline (including
sub-transmission
steel pipelines) to be
laid within 8 contract
years from the date
of authorisation

Note - Annual escalation shall be considered from the second contract
year and onwards based on the "Wholesale Price Index (WPI) Data
(2011-12 = 100)" for "All Group / Commodity", as normally available on
the website of the Office of the Economic Adviser, Government of India,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy
and Promotion (DIPP) on the link "http://eaindustry.nic.in/home.asp."

Provided that in the case of the geographical areas of (i) Bilaspur,
Hamirpur and Una Districts; (ii) Panchkula (Except area already
authorised), Shimla, Solan and Sirmaur Districts and (iii) Barmer,
Jaisalmer and Jodhpur Districts, it is not mandatory to supply natural
gas through steel-pipes. However natural gas has to reach in all
charge areas. The bidding parameters and their respective weightage
will, accordingly, be as under: -

Sl. Bidding Criteria Weighta Explanation
No. ge (%)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 54 of 184

1 Lowness of 10 Bidder is required to quote
transportation rate for transportation rate for CGD
CGD - in rupees per only for the first contract year
million British which shall not be less than
Thermal Unit Rs. 30 /MMBTU. Rates for the
(Rs./MMBTU) subsequent contract years
shall be derived considering
the quoted rate and escalation
as per Note.

2 Lowness of 10 Bidder is required to quote
transportation rate for transportation rate for CNG
CNG -in rupees per only for the first contract year
kilo gram (Rs. / kg) which shall not be less than
Rs. 2 /kg. Rates for the
subsequent contract years
shall be derived considering
the quoted rate and escalation
as per Note.
3 Highness of number 25 -
of [CNG Stations]
(online and daughter
booster stations) to
be installed within 8
contract years from
the date of
authorization
4 Highness of number 55 -
of domestic piped
natural gas

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 55 of 184

connections to be
achieved within 8
contract years from
the date of
authorization
Note - Annual escalation shall be considered from the second contract
year and onwards based on the "Wholesale Price Index (WPI) Data
(2011-12 = 100)" for "All Group / Commodity", as normally available on
the website of the Office of the Economic Adviser, Government of India,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy
and Promotion (DIPP) on the link "http://eaindustry.nic.in/home.asp."

(b) Successful bidder shall be required to achieve the year-wise
work programme within 8 contract years as per details given below,
namely:-
PNG Connections [CNG Stations] Inch-km of steel
(cumulative) (cumulative) pipeline
(cumulative)
By the % of work By the % of work By the % of work
end of programm end of programm end of programm
contrac e contrac e contrac e
t year t year t year

1st Nil 1st Nil 1st 5

2nd 10 2nd 15 2nd 20

3rd 20 3rd 30 3rd 40

4th 30 4th 45 4th 60

5th 40 5th 60 5th 70
Subs. by point (i) of Cl. (2) of sub-reg (b) of reg (2), for 'natural gas stations' ibid. (w.e.f. 27.04.2018).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 56 of 184

6th 60 6th 75 6th 80

7th 80 7th 90 7th 90

8th 100 8th 100 8th 100

Note - In case derived numbers are in fraction, the same shall be
rounded off to the nearest whole number and fraction 0.5 shall be
rounded off to next higher whole number.

Provided that in the case of the geographical areas of (i) Bilaspur,
Hamirpur and Una Districts; (ii) Panchkula (Except area already
authorised), Shimla, Solan and Sirmaur Districts and (iii) Barmer,
Jaisalmer and Jodhpur Districts, successful bidder shall be required to
achieve the year-wise work programme within 10 contract years as per
details given below, namely: -

PNG Connections [CNG Stations] (cumulative)
(cumulative)
By the % of work By the end of % of work
end of programme contract year programme
contract
year
1st Nil 1st Nil

2nd 10 2nd 10

3rd 20 3rd 20

4th 30 4th 30

5th 40 5th 40

6th 50 6th 50

7th 60 7th 60

8th 70 8th 70

9th 80 9th 80

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 57 of 184

10th 100 10th 100

Note - In case derived numbers are in fraction, the same shall be
rounded off to the nearest whole number and fraction 0.5 shall be
rounded off to next higher whole number.

[(3) Bidder entity with the highest composite score, considering the
criteria under sub-regulation (1) and as illustrated in Schedule C
(1), shall be declared as successful bidder.

Provided that in case of tie in the evaluated composite score, the
successful bidder shall be decided based on the highness of
numbers of PNG connections among the tied bidding entities. In
case there is tie on number of PNG connections also, highness of
inch-kilometer steel pipeline shall be considered and thereafter in
case of tie in inch-kilometer as well, highness of numbers of [CNG
stations] shall be considered]"

C. ANALYSIS:

75. On the relevance of the 2011 Census data in the bidding process, it
was contended on behalf of the appellants, in
Adani Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum
& Natural Gas Regulatory Board
, (2020) 4 SCC 529, that the map
attached to the bid document did not only describe the land area but also the
population and households comprised in it; the figures for population and
number of households in the map attached to the bid document were drawn
from the 2011 Census; out of the 86 GAs, which were part of the ninth round
of bidding, certain parts of several GAs were excluded from the zone of
authorization, and the population/household number was proportionally
reduced to reflect the population/households as per the reduced area; the
map annexed to the bid document depicted not only the land area but also
the population/number of households which were intrinsically inter-twined in

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 58 of 184

the bid parameters; clause 1.1.3 of the bid document mandated bidders to
look at the "existing population"; and clause 1.1.1 required bidders to bear in
mind the population/households as given in the map annexed to the bid
document.

76. It is in this context that the Supreme Court observed that the relevance
of the 2011 Census data must be assessed in the context of the CGD
Authorisation Regulations as amended on 6-4-2018;
Regulation 5(6)

required the fulfilment of minimum eligibility criteria, and for the Board to
scrutinise the bids of only those entities which fulfilled the minimum eligibility
criteria; and the bidding criteria in
Regulation 7
were not linked to the 2011
Census figures.

77. It is useful, in this context, to note what Regulations 5(6)(e) and 5(6)(h)
of the 2008 Regulations stipulate.
Regulation 5
relates to the criteria for
selection of entity for expression of interest route.
Regulation 5(6)
requires
the Board to scrutinize the bids received in response to the advertisement in
respect of only those entities which fulfil the following minimum eligibility
criteria, namely, among others, (e) the entity has adequate financial
strength to execute the proposed project, operate and maintain the same
in the authorized area and shall meet the following financial criterion to
qualify for bidding for a single CGD network, namely:-

Population in the geographical Minimum net worth of
area [as per latest census of India] the bidder entity
(1) (2)
5 million or more Rs.1,500 million for a
population of 5 million,
plus additional Rs. 300
million for each 1 million
of population or part

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 59 of 184

thereof, in excess of 5
million (refer Note - 3)

2 million or more but less than 5 Rs.1,000 million
million
1 million or more but less than 2 million Rs. 750 million

0.5 million or more but less than Rs.500 million
1 million
0.25 million or more but less Rs.250 million
than 0.50 million
0.1 million or more but less than Rs.100 million
0.25 million
Less than 0.1 million Rs.50 million
Note - 1 The above minimum net-worth is applicable in case the
bidder entity bids for a single geographical area in a particular
bidding round.

Note - 2 In case a bidder entity bids for more than one
geographical area, then, the minimum net-worth requirement
shall be calculated by considering 100% of minimum net-worth
required for the bidded geographical area having the highest
population, plus 20% of minimum net-worth required for each of
the other geographical areas. For example, if a bidder has bidded
for four geographical areas namely A, B,C and D and out of these
four geographical areas, C has the highest population, then
minimum net-worth requirement shall be calculated as minimum
net-worth requirement of C plus 20% of minimum net-worth
requirements for A, B and D each.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 60 of 184

Note - 3 For example, if the population is 8.4 million, then the
minimum net-worth required shall be Rs. 2,700 million (i.e. Rs.
1,500 million for initial 5 million of population, plus Rs. 1,200
million for 3.4 million of population in excess of 5 million).

(i) Net-worth of a bidder entity shall be computed as per Schedule-K.

78.
Regulation 5(6)(h)
required the entity to furnish a bid bond, in the form
of Bank Guarantee or demand draft or pay order from any scheduled bank
drawn in favour of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board
payable at New Delhi, for an amount equal to- (i) rupees fifty million for a
population of five million and proportionately higher amount for population
of more than five million; (ii) rupees thirty million for a population of one
million and more but less than five million; (iii) rupees twenty million for a
population of half a million and more but less than one million; (iv) rupees
fifteen million for a population of quarter of a million and more but less than
half a million; (v) rupees ten million for a population of one-tenth of a million
and more but less than quarter of a million; and (vi) rupees five million for a
population less than one-tenth of a million.

79.
In
Adani Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board
,
(2020) 4 SCC 529, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between
Regulations 5(6)(e) and 5(6)(h) on the one hand, and
Regulation 7
of the
2008 Regulations on the other, to hold that the 2008 Regulations indicated
that, where a specific linkage was sought with reference to the 2011 Census
data, a clear and categorical provision was made to that effect; such
provisions were found in regard to the financial capability of a bidder as part
of the minimum eligibility criteria in
Regulation 5(6)(e)
, and the extent of the
performance bond in
Regulation 5(6)(h)
; absent a condition in
Regulation 7
,
linking the "highness" of the number of PNG connections to be achieved

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 61 of 184

within eight years from the date of authorisation with the 2011 Census data,
such a restriction could not be read into the 2008 Regulations.

80. On the contention of the appellants that the map contained a reference
to population and household figures on the basis of the 2011 Census, the
Supreme Court, after referring to clauses 1.1.3, 1.2 and 2.1.1 of the
Application cum Bid Document, observed that the bidder was required to
carefully study the GA and the charge area before submitting the bid; the bid
document necessarily had to be in conformity with the 2008 Regulations; the
map, at best, was a compendium of the latest official record of the GA; the
mere attachment of a map to the bid document would not result in the
imposition of conditions of eligibility or qualification, as these have been
provided in the Regulations; the depiction of the GA in a map attached to the
bid document did not override the specific requirements of the bidding
criteria as defined in
Regulation 7
; the Regulations did not link the "highness"
factor of domestic PNG connections to the 2011 Census data; neither the
2008 Regulations nor the bid document required the number of projected
households to be calculated on the basis of the 2011 Census data; and the
decision of the Board to accept the justification provided by the bidders could
not be attacked on the ground that the figures provided did not strictly match
the numbers extrapolated from the 2011 Census data.

81. Unlike in
Adani Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory
Board
, (2020) 4 SCC 529, the dispute, in the present appeal, relates to 19
CNG stations all of which, even according to the 2nd Respondent, were
located within the then Kanchipuram District. The submission, urged by
Learned Senior Counsel and Learned Counsel on either side, vary on the
manner in which the boundaries of Kanchipuram District Geographical Area
should be determined. The Appellant's contention is that, since the
Kanchipuram District Geographical Area (GA) is co-terminus with the then

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 62 of 184

existing Kanchipuram District, and as there is no dispute that these 19 CNG
stations fall within the boundaries of Kanchipuram District, these CNG
stations fall within the authorized area of the Appellant; and the Board erred
in holding that these CNG stations fall within the geographical area
authorised in favour of the second Respondent on the basis of co-ordinates.

82. Even while examining the scope and ambit of
Regulation 7
of the 2008
Regulations, the Supreme Court, in
Adani Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum & Natural
Gas Regulatory Board
, (2020) 4 SCC 529, held that the map (in Annexure-
1 of the ACBD) was, at best, a compendium of the latest official record of the
GA. If that be so, then all factors, such as area, population, households etc
as reflected on the right side of the said map, would assume relevance in
determining the contours and extent of each of these GAs ie GA 9,61 and
9.62.

83. As noted hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the adjoining
geographical areas of Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts on the one hand, and
Kanchipuram District GA on the other, do not overlap. it is thus evident that
these 19 CNGs stations either fall within the boundaries of Chennai-
Tiruvallur District GA or Kanchipuram District GA. As shall be detailed
hereinafter, both the
PNGRB Act
and the 2008 Regulations obligate the
PNGRB to clearly identify the GAs for which bids are intended to be invited
before commencing the exercise of inviting bids for the concerned
geographical areas. What we are required to examine, in the present appeal,
is the exercise undertaken by the PNGRB to identify the boundaries of GAs
9.61 and 9.62. Since this question did not arise for consideration in
Adani
Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board
, (2020) 4 SCC
529, reliance placed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent on the said judgement,
to contend that the data referred to on the right side of the map is irrelevant
in determining the boundaries of the GAs, is misplaced.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 63 of 184

VII. APPLICATION-CUM-BID DOCUMENT ("ACBD"):

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

84. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that the ACBD was issued by the Board on
12.04.2018; (1) Cl. 1.1.1 of the ACBD states that PNGRB "has identified" the
GA and is "accordingly" inviting applications-cum-bids for the "aforesaid
geographical area" as depicted in the map at Annexure-1; thus, the bids
which were invited, and the area which was depicted, is the area which stood
identified by the Board in terms of
Section 19
, i.e., the area comprised in the
respective districts; (2) in Clause 2.1.2, Annexure 1 is described as the "Map
depicting the Geographical Area and the Charge Areas", and the bidders
were asked to carefully study both, before submitting the bid; the entire
Annexure 1, including all the attribute data mentioned therein, constitutes
the map and depiction of the Geographical Area; and the GA and the Charge
Areas are sacrosanct as per ACBD and the Regulations; (3) Annexure 1 to
the ACBD describes the Geographical Area with reference to various factors,
including its total area, population, number of households, Charge Areas,
towns/ villages comprised therein, overlapping of the district and GA
boundary etc; the 2nd Respondent is bound by the various attribute data
which it had submitted as part of its offer to the Board, including the total
area, the population etc., which correspond to the data of the districts of
Chennai and Tiruvallur; (4) thereafter, various bidders sought clarifications
and the Board issued Corrigenda, correcting the attribute data of several
maps; if the GAs were identifiable at this stage only with reference to co-
ordinates, and not Districts, there was no public record available for the
various data figures of the GA; it was thus not possible for any bidder to seek
any clarification or the Board to issue any Corrigendum, for a GA allegedly
identified with reference to co-ordinates; and the population and number of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 64 of 184

households could, if at all, be derived by undertaking an exercise akin to that
carried out by the Survey of India and the Census of India, which was clearly
not done.

B. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT:

85. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the
application-cum-bid document ("ACBD") for the 9th CGD Bidding Round was
issued by PNGRB on 12.04.2018; a GA map along with geo-coordinates was
web hosted with the bid document for each GA; some of the important
provisions of the bid document were as follows: (a) Clause 1.1.1 of the Bid
Document stated that the PNGRB has identified the GA considering
availability of natural gas and pipeline connectivity in the GA or in its vicinity
for development of CGD network; further Clause 1.1.1 also states that
PNGRB is accordingly inviting applications-cum-bids for grant of
authorization for developing City Gas Distribution (CGD) network in the
aforesaid geographical area as depicted in the map at Annexure-1; (b)
Clause 1.1.3 stated that it is the bidder's responsibility to obtain all
information related to the present gas supply availability and pipeline
connectivity and also existing customers, if any, in the specific GA; (c) Clause
2.1.1 stated that the bidder is expected to examine all the contents of the Bid
Document, including all instructions, terms and conditions and all the
regulations of the Board, and the Bid Document, together with all its
annexures, shall be considered to be read, understood and accepted by the
bidder; (d) Clause 2.1.2 of the Bid Document stated that the application-
cum-bid document inter alia comprises of the following annexures: (i)
Annexure 1 - Map depicting the Geographical Areas and Charge Areas: The
bidder shall carefully study the geographical area and charge areas before
submitting their Application-cum-Bid, and (ii) Annexure 1 of the Bid
Document: The bidder shall carefully study the geographical area and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 65 of 184

charge area before submitting their Application- cum-Bid; thus the map for
each GA was supplied by PNGRB as Annexure 1 of the Bid Document; the
geo-spatial coordinates i.e. latitude and longitude were an integral part of
each map; and opportunities were also available to bidders to seek any
clarifications, if required prior to the bid submission.

C. RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE APPLICATION CUM BID
DOCUMENT:

86. Part A of the Application-cum-Bid document ("ACBD" for short)
contains the instructions to the bidders. Reference of the bidders is drawn
thereby to the Regulations applicable to them which includes the 2008
authorisation regulations and the amendments thereto. Clause 1.1 of the
ACBD relates to the geographical area and related information. Clause 1.1.1
states that the PNGRB has identified this geographical area considering the
availability of natural gas and pipeline connectivity in the GA or in its vicinity
for development of CGD network; PNGRB was, accordingly, inviting
Applications-cum-Bids for grant of authorisation for developing City Gas
Distribution (CGD) network in the aforesaid geographical area as depicted
in the map at Annexure-1. Clause 1.1.2 states that the charge areas are also
depicted in the map; if the bidding entity is finally granted authorization, the
entity shall be required to reach the charge areas as stipulated in the CGD
authorisation Regulations. Clause 1.1.3 makes it clear that it is the bidder's
responsibility to obtain all information related to the gas supply availability
and pipeline connectivity and also existing customers, if any, in the specified
geographical area; the bidder can also refer to list of NOCs/Permissions
granted by the PNGRB to various entities under the provisions of the internal
guidelines for grant of NOC/Permission for (i) supply/distribution of
CBM/natural gas through cascades; and (ii) setting up of CNG/LNG
Daughter Booster Stations (DBS) in the areas where the Board has not yet
authorised any entity for developing or operating CGD networks at

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 66 of 184

http:///www.pngrb.gov.in/CGD-NOCs.html; these NOCs/Permissions are
subject to the conditions contained in the Internal Guidelines and include the
condition that in case the area, in which supply/distribution of CBM/natural
gas through cascades and/or setting up of CNG/LNG DBS are allowed, is
covered under any authorised GA in future, then such entity to whom
NOC/permission has been granted shall obtain prior approval from the
authorised entity for continuation of such activities or shall cease its activities
immediately. Clause 1.2 relates to the scope of work and, thereunder, the
entities bidding for this work shall be required to lay, build, operate or expand
the CGD network to meet the requirement of natural gas in domestic,
commercial and industrial segments, including compressed natural gas in
the vehicular segment, in the said geographical area to be authorized, and
also to comply with the relevant regulations notified from time to time; and
the entities shall be required to carry out the development of CGD project in
line with the regulations
laid down by
the PNGRB.

87. Clause 2.0 of the ACBD relates to the bidding documents and Clause
2.1 to documentation. Clause 2.1.1 provides that the bidder is expected to
examine all the contents of the Application-cum-Bid document, including all
instructions, forms, terms and conditions and all the regulations of PNGRB;

the Application-cum-Bid document together with all its annexures thereto
shall be considered to be read, understood and accepted by the bidder;
failure to furnish all the information required as per the Application-cum-Bid
document or submission of Application-cum-Bid not complete in every
respect will be at the bidder's risk and may result in rejection of the
Application-cum-Bid. Clause 2.1.2 stipulates that the Application-cum-Bid
document comprises of the following Annexures and the bidder shall note
the following with respect to these Annexures, Annexure 1 to Annexure 13
as well as Annexure 1 of Part B are detailed thereunder. Annexure 1 is the
map depicting the geographical area and charge area, and the bidders were

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 67 of 184

directed to carefully study the geographical are and the charge areas before
submitting the bid.

88. Clause 2.2 of the ACBE relates to clarifications of the Application-cum-
Bid document, and Clause 2.2.1 stipulates that the entity requiring any
clarification shall obtain the same from the Secretary, PNGRB in writing so
as to ensure submission of the Application-cum-Bid on or before the bid
closing date; the PNGRB will respond in writing to such queries, which are
received up to one month from first day of bid sale period; written copies of
the PNGRB's response (including explanation of the query but without
identifying the source of the query) will be hosted on the web site of the
PNGRB. Annexure 1 to the ABCD, which relates to the map depicting the
geographical area and the charge area, also requires the bidder to carefully
study the geographical area and charge area before submitting their
Application-cum-Bid.

D. ANALYSIS:

89. While the physical map, on the left side of Annexure-1, no doubt
contains the longitudes and latitudes of the Geographical Area, and must
therefore be held to form an integral part of the map, it must also be borne
in mind that the other details on the right side of Annexure-1, such as the
area of the GA in square kilometres, the total number of households in the
GA as per the 2011 Census, the total population of the GA as per the 2011
Census, details of the charge areas of the GA, and on the left side of
Annexure-1 itself, details such as the boundaries of the charge areas as
recorded in the physical map, location of the 9 villages with a population of
above 5000 where 15 of the 19 PNG stations are located, the district
boundary of Kanchipuram District overlapping the GA boundary of GA 9.61
etc, are also relevant and must also be held to form an integral part of the
map in Annexure-1. While the 2nd Respondent seeks to highlight the failure

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 68 of 184

of the Appellant to seek clarifications prior to bid submission, what it has
chosen not to state is that if, as is now contended before us, the information
on the righthand side of the map is irrelevant and the other factors referred
to in the physical map are erroneous, the 2nd Respondent should also have
sought necessary clarifications, which they chose not to do. That the
PNGRB had held in favour of the 2nd Respondent on the basis of co-
ordinates would not, by itself, justify our ignoring all the other details, given
both on the left side and the right side of the map of Annexure-1 of the ACBD,
apart from the co-ordinates.

90. Since the PNGRB has, in the impugned order, applied the co-ordinates
test, it would be appropriate to consider the appellant's challenge thereto,
before examining the factors relied on by them to contend that the
boundaries of the Kanchipuram District GA are co-terminus with the
boundaries of the then Kanchipuram District. Let us first examine the 2nd
Respondent's contentions regarding the appellant's pleadings both in their
complaint filed before the PNGRB and thereafter in the appeal filed before
us.

VIII. HAS THE APPELLANT, IN ITS PLEADINGS,
ACKNOWLEDGED THE EXISTENCE OF 'COORDINATES':

91. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
2nd Respondent, would submit that, during its oral submissions, the
appellant has disputed the existence of geo-coordinates, and has
submitted that the PNGRB maps do not contain the geo-coordinates of
even a single point of the GA or its boundary; apart from these contentions
being raised only for the first time before this Tribunal, this submission is
also absurd; in its complaint before the PNGRB, the appellant has
repeatedly acknowledged that the map given by the PNGRB contains
'coordinates' i.e. the latitude and longitude; in fact, the appellant had

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 69 of 184

claimed in its complaint before the PNGRB that it had not "physically
verified" the coordinates i.e. latitude and longitude specified in the map,
thereby accepting the existence of co-ordinates; prayer (e) of the complaint
filed by the appellant before PNGRB also shows that the
existence of co-ordinates has not been disputed; even in its appeal before
this Tribunal, the appellant has not disputed the fact that the GA maps
contain co-ordinates; and it is evident from a perusal of the aforesaid
pleadings that the appellant had never disputed the existence of co-
ordinates in its submissions before the PNGRB.

A. ANALYSIS:

92. In Para 3.1.5(iv), of their complaint filed before the Board, the Appellant
stated that the 2nd Respondent's contention, that its authorised Chennai GA
spread over certain parts of Kanchipuram District as per the map web-hosted
by the Board, was false and fraudulent, since the 2nd respondent's contention
accorded significance only, and in supersession of vectors, legends etc.
marked on the Authorized map, to the co-ordinates i.e. the latitudes and
longitude figures of the boundary marked on the authorized map, which
formed no part of the identification of the GA by the PNGRB; all these data
(referred to in Para 3.1.5(iv)) could not be disregarded, on the basis of a
map, subsequent to the dispute with reference only to the coordinates and
contours of the boundary.

93. In Para 4.7 of the very same complaint, the Appellant had stated that
it had submitted the bid for Kanchipuram GA on the basis of the information
and data provided in the ACBD for Kanchipuram District, including the total
area, population, number of households, villages, towns, airport etc; the co-
ordinates, i.e. the latitudes and longitudes specified in the map, were not
physically verified by the Appellant to check whether the Vectors and
Legends mentioned in the map corresponded to the latitudes and longitudes

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 70 of 184

mentioned in the edges, since there was no requirement or obligation for
them to do so; the specific latitudes and longitudes did not, within
themselves, have any commercial significance; and it was not viable to
undertake a physical verification exercise of going to individual villages,
verifying their coordinates and matching it with the authorized map, as such
an exercise was neither contemplated nor undertaken by any of the bidders.
In Para 4.22 of the complaint, the Appellant stated that the co-ordinates can,
at best, be used by an authorized entity to identify its boundaries, and cannot
be used by any other entity to alter their respective geographical areas.

94. Further in Para 6.2(e), among the final reliefs sought by them from the
PNGRB, the Appellant sought a direction from the Board to hold that the co-
ordinates, given on the side of the rectangle framing the map provided with
the authorization, were not capable of changing the identified details and
specifications of a particular Geographical Area including: (i) the total area,
total population and total households; and (ii) identified talukas, towns,
villages, landmarks, district headquarters specified to be comprising a
particular Geographical Area.

95. It is clear from the afore-said averments in the complaint, as also the
prayers made by them to the Board, that the Appellant's grievance was
mainly that the details furnished on the right hand side of the map should be
given preference over the co-ordinates i.e. latitudes and longitudes specified
in the map, more so as they could not be specifically verified by the Appellant
to check whether the vectors and legends mentioned in the map
corresponded to the latitudes and longitudes mentioned on the edges.

96. Even in the Appeal filed before this Tribunal (in Para 7 Page 23), the
question of law raised was whether the geo-spatial co-ordinates, indicated
on the map issued with the letter of authorization, formed the sole and
exclusive basis for determination of the extent of the geographical area

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 71 of 184

authorized to an entity. It does not appear to be the Appellant's case, even
in the Appeal filed before this Tribunal, that the latitudes and longitudes
indicated in the map could not be relied upon, and such contentions are
being urged across the bar for the first time during the course of hearing of
this appeal.

97. In the light of the fact that the appellant has not disputed the existence
of co-ordinates in the physical map in Annexure-1, and has only contended
that the other information given in the map would be the relevant
consideration for determination of the boundaries of the GA, we may not be
justified in examining whether or not the map contains co-ordinates. Since
elaborate arguments were put forth in this regard, and to avoid the possibility
of our being faulted for not taking note of them, we reproduce the
submissions, urged by Learned Senior Counsel and Learned Counsel, in
this regard making it clear that we do not intend expressing any opinion
thereupon as it is un-necessary for us to do so.

IX. CO-ORDINATES TEST:

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

98. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that, even if the co-ordinates test is to be applied, it
must be applied with reference to the correct co-ordinate based map of the
Survey of India, as per which, even the alleged coordinates of the CNG
stations as per the 2nd Respondent, fall in GA 9.61 of the appellant;
application of co-ordinates must be on the SOI digital map which is,
admittedly, the source map for the authorization maps; if the coordinate test
is applied, it would lead to various regulatory anomalies, some of which are
noted in the impugned order, and none of which have been factually
disputed; one such anomaly which arises in respect of the Barmer,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 72 of 184

Jaisalmer, Jodhpur Districts GA 9.55, is that a part of the area of the GA, as
per co-ordinates and principle applied by Board, large part of the authorised
area falls in Pakistan, which is completely absurd; the co-ordinate test is not
applicable in the present case, since the authorization maps are not GIS
maps; they do not contain the co-ordinates of even a single point of the GA
or its boundary, but only contain the co-ordinates of the reference grid in
which the map has been placed; a GIS map has been defined by the
Supreme Court as "an organised collection of computer hardware, software,
geographic data designed to capture all forms of geographically referenced
information (seewww.volusia.org)." [
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) v.
Union of India
, (2006) 5 SCC 28 at para 35]'; clearly, the pdf map issued
with the authorization does not match this description; boundaries cannot be
determined by these grid co-ordinates and placing pdf file on a digital
platform; the Appellant has made detailed submissions of facts in its Affidavit
dated 25.04.2023 on the point that the authorization maps are not GIS maps;
the processes followed for the preparation of a co-ordinate based geo-
referenced map by the Survey of India (SOI) are explained in the Appellant's
Affidavit dated 25.04.2023; these factual submissions remain
uncontroverted; coordinates are, but, one of the ways of geo-referencing a
map and are not the criteria for determining the authorised area being
demarcated by PNGRB for being placed for competitive tender as part of a
CGD bid round; the tender issued for selection of the map vendor also shows
that he was required to geo-reference the map, not with coordinates but
standard cartographic symbology and colours; from a bare perusal of the
authorization maps, it is evident that there are no co-ordinates of any point
in the GA or on the boundary of GA are stated therein; in fact, factually, even
the 2nd Respondent's case is only that the co-ordinates of the GA boundary
can be 'derived' from the map; it is the further case of the 2nd Respondent
that, when the coordinates of the CNG stations (as allegedly ascertained by

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 73 of 184

them), and the .shp file provided by PNGRB, are plotted on Google Earth,
along with the co-ordinates of the CNG stations, it shows them as falling
within GA 9.62; once all the details of the GA have been clearly provided in
the map, and the addresses of the CNG stations are known, there is no
warrant for such a derivative exercise; further, the Board itself stated in its
tender of March, 2021 that "Use of data from alternative online sources such
as Google Earth / Google Maps is strictly prohibited as this is strictly against
the usage policies of the respective services."; the first time the Board sought
preparation of GA maps geo-referenced with respect to coordinates was by
issuing a tender for the same in March, 2021; this geo-referencing with
coordinates was to be consistent not with any coordinates of any reference
grid given in the authorization maps, but with the district boundaries; if the
authorization maps were in fact GIS maps, geo-referenced with the co-
ordinates, this whole exercise was completely redundant; if the exercise had
gone through, any error in the depiction would have been corrected with
reference to the district boundary as per Survey of India, and not entailed
correction of the attribute data by giving primacy to the juxtaposition of the
contours of the boundary with the coordinates of the grid; since there is no
geo-referencing exercise which was undertaken by or on behalf of the Board,
even if the co-ordinate test is applied, it must be applied with reference to
the source map, which is the Survey of India map; the appellant has
demonstrated in its Affidavit dated 25.04.2023 that conducting such an
exercise, and assuming, without prejudice, the co-ordinates of the CNG
stations as stated by the 2nd Respondent to be correct, the CNG Stations in
question fall within GA 9.61 authorized to the appellant; the appellant has
also demonstrated that the CNG stations, on the basis of their admitted
addresses, fall in GA 9.61; and the 2nd Respondent has not disputed these
maps and factual submissions, but has argued that the PESO addresses are
irrelevant.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 74 of 184

B. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE PNGRB:

99. Sri Rahul Sagar Sahai, Learned Counsel for the PNGRB, would submit
that the test to determine a dispute, with regard to boundary (such as the
instant case), is "co-ordinates" i.e. longitudes and latitudes; the other data
mentioned in the map such as number of households, population etc.,
though part of the map, are determinative for other aspects such as the value
of the performance bank guarantee etc; it is relevant to take note of

Regulation 5
of the Authorization Regulations (which provides for bank
guarantees); the ACBD, in clause 1.1, provides that the GA is 'as depicted
in the 'map' enclosed; this map is up to scale and co-ordinate based;
therefore, it is possible to find out the location of any point based on the co-
ordinates i.e. longitude and latitude; sailors have been using the method for
centuries to navigate the open seas; the clause states that "PNGRB has
identified this geographical area ......"; it only means that the PNGRB has
identified the area as depicted in the map and not 'district'; this map is
accordingly geo-referenced; confusion has been created by the Appellant
with regard to the geo- referenced map, digital map, co-ordinate map and
GIS Map; during oral submissions, the counsel for the Board had referred to
an article by National (which can be accessed with URL
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geographic-
information-system-gis/4th-grade) and annexed as Annexure - A with
this Written Submission, which defines geographic information system
(GIS) as a computer system for capturing, storing, checking and displaying
data related to positions on Earth's surface; it further states that GIS can use
information that includes location which can be expressed in many different
ways such as latitude and longitude, address or ZIP code; therefore, as was
presented during the oral submissions, GIS is not a separate or different kind
of map; it is only such a platform or system where data is stored in various
layers and can be accessed as such; however, the GIS system is based on

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 75 of 184

co-ordinates i.e. longitude and latitudes; accordingly, a geo-referenced can
be digitally stored and shown in a GIS system; the Supreme Court in TN
Godavarman v UOI (2006) 5 SCC 45 (at para 28 & 29) has dealt with GIS
(Geographical Information System) and GPS (Global positioning system)
concept, and has held that the later technology gives more spatial
information, but that does not mean that the information given by the earlier
technology is inaccurate; the co-ordinate method used by the Board to
decide boundary dispute is not erroneous; the Impugned Judgement also
states that a visual inspection of the map for the GA of Chennai and Tiruvallur
Districts would make it clear that the GA boundary of Chennal and Tiruvallur
Districts extended beyond the district boundary of Chennai and Tiruvallur;
the PNGRB further noted that GA Nos. 9.61 and 9.62 represented mutually
exclusive areas and that there was no overlap whatsoever between the two;
and there is clear finding in the PNGRB impugned order dated 22.12.2022
that the map of the GA 9.61 and GA 9.62 coalesce seamlessly.

C. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT:

100. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, would submit that, in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal
on 05.04.2023 in the present appeal, the area of divergence in the present
case is "confined only to the location of the 19 CNG Stations" as both parties
claim that they fall within their respective GAs; a visual inspection of the
maps given with the Bid Document for GA Nos. 9.61 and 9.62 would show
that the maps contain geo-spatial coordinates (latitude and longitude); these
maps are admittedly final and sacrosanct; the maps seamlessly merge/
coalesce into each other; this shows that the co-ordinates given in the maps
provided by PNGRB were accurate, and the maps do not overlap with each
other; every location on earth has its own unique geo-coordinates; in the
case of TN Godavarman v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 28], at paras.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 76 of 184

35 to 37, the Supreme Court has recognized that the latest technology under
the Geographical-Information System (GIS) can locate even a pin on earth;
in the present case, the exact location of the disputed CNG stations can be
verified only using geo-coordinates as the same are unique to the location
and do not undergo any change unlike other administrative characteristics
like address, names of districts/village/towns etc; the 2nd Respondent first
ascertained the geo-coordinates of each of the CNG stations under
challenge; they duly verified if the same fell within the GA awarded to them
by plotting the coordinates on the map given by PNGRB; the exercise of
plotting the co-ordinates is straight-forward, it can be undertaken either
manually or using any well-accepted GPS software; in fact, the 2nd
Respondent has demonstrated, in the hearing before this Tribunal, the exact
location of all the 19 CNG stations using co-ordinates by manually plotting
them on the PNGRB map; similarly, the 2nd Respondent also demonstrated,
in its presentation, the exact location of these CNG stations using different
GIS software; on the contrary, till date, the appellant has not proved or shown
the exact location of the CNG stations either on the GA map or in the .shp
file provided by PNGRB; all the disputed 19 CNG stations are
unambiguously within the GA boundary authorized to the 2nd Respondent; in
its complaint before the PNGRB, the appellant nowhere contended that the
disputed 19 CNG stations fell within the GA awarded to the 2nd Respondent
as per the 'coordinates' test; rather, its only contention (albeit wrong) was
that the vendor appointed by PNGRB to prepare the maps made a mistake
while juxtaposing the map with the coordinates; the scope of work for the
vendor appointed to prepare the said maps further states that "complete geo-
referencing has to be provided in the supplied maps with standard
cartographic symbology and colours" (Clause 17.1.1.2); this shows that the
maps provided by the vendor were geo-referenced; and the vendor was also
required to ensure submissions in the form of geo- referenced .shp files

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 77 of 184

projected in WGS format besides JPG and PDF (Para. 17.1.1.2(f)); and it
can also be visually seen from the map of GA No. 9.62 that an area below
'Chennai' and around SH-109 (major landmark) is in GA No. 9.62.

101. Though we have refrained from examining the contention urged on
behalf of the appellant, for the first time during the hearing of this appeal,
that what is shown in the map in Annexure-1 of the ACBD and the
Authorisation are not co-ordinates, we must nonetheless consider the
exercise undertaken by the respondents to locate the 19 CNG Stations on
the maps of GA.9.61 and 9.62. As the 2nd Respondent claims to have plotted
these stations, by placing the .shp file provided to them by the Board on
Google Earth Platform, we shall take note of the rival submissions in this
regard. Before that, we must examine the appellant's contention that the .shp
files were not available with the Board when it invited bids in April, 2018.

X. NOT SHARING .SHP FILES: ITS EFFECT:

A. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

102. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that it was orally contended by the Board that certain
.shp files were also available with them at the ACBD stage though, evidently,
no such file was shared with any bidder; all references to the .shp files in
these submissions are without prejudice to the Appellant's contention that
the .shp file cannot be considered in the present case since: (i) these files
were not made available to either the appellant or the 2nd Respondent, or for
that matter to any other bidder, prior to submission of their bids, or even at
the stage of authorization; (ii) there is no affidavit on record as to who
prepared these .shp files, when were they received and if any verification
thereof was undertaken by the Board; (iii) there is no reference to any .shp
file in the ACBD; if such a file existed and the bidders were required to

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 78 of 184

ascertain the extent of their GAs with respect to co-ordinates, there would
be no question of PNGRB not making the same available to the bidders at
the bidding stage; (iv) if such .shp file existed, and the coordinates were the
determining factor of the GA, at least the Board would have corrected the
total area in sq km, wherever it was inconsistent with the .shp file, by issuing
corrigenda; evidently, no such corrigenda, in respect of total area on the
basis of .shp file, were issued. (v) there is no record of any co-ordinates
having been supplied to the map vendor for plotting a GA boundary on the
basis thereof in an .shp file; Geo-referenced data was not provided to the
vendor for preparation of the maps, and the vendor was not required to do
any survey on his own; (vi) when disputes arose between the appellant and
the 2nd Respondent, and the appellant requested PNGRB for a digital map
of GA 9.61 on 17.08.2021, PNGRB, by its response dated 23.09.2021, did
not provide this .shp file to the appellant, but referred it to the district
administration/ Survey of India/ Census of India.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF PNGRB:

103. On the issue of not sharing of .shp files, Sri Rahul Sagar Sahai,
Learned Counsel for the PNGRB, would submit that an argument was raised
that the .shp file was not shared by PNGRB with the Appellant, but had been
shared with the 2nd Respondent; this is again twisting of the facts; the .shp
file needs special software to open; the 2nd Respondent had specifically
sought .shp file from the Boad, and thus it was shared with them; on the
other hand, the Appellant had sought a digital map which had already been
web-hosted and shared; the same was mentioned in the PNGRB's letter
dated 23.09.2021. and, in any case, the .shp file was also shared with the
Appellant during the oral submissions before this Tribunal.

C. SUBMISSIONS OF 2ND RESPONDENT:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 79 of 184

104. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, would submit that the PNGRB had clarified, in January, 2020,
that it has .shp files for all the 136 GAs awarded in 9th and 10th Rounds;
therefore, the appellant's contention that there were no GIS maps available
with the PNGRB in 2018, by referring to the tender floated by PNGRB for
preparation of GIS maps in 2021, is incorrect and misleading; the map issued
with the Bid Document has itself been prepared using the .shp files given by
the PNGRB; and, in such a scenario, there can be no question of any
difference between the .shp files and the map enclosed with the Bid
Document.

D. ANALYSIS:

105. By email dated 01.09.2020, the 2nd Respondent requested the PNGRB
to share the Geo-coordinates map of the Geographical Area of Chennai and
Tiruvallur (GA-ID 9.52) for demarcating their GA boundary. In reply thereto,
the Board forthwith, vide e-mail of the same date i.e. 01.09.2020, forwarded,
a copy of the .SHP file for Chennai and Tiruvallur District GA to the 2nd
Respondent.

106. After authorization was granted to the Appellant on 26.09.2018, and
the Appellant had, vide their letter dated 20.02.2020, accepted the terms and
conditions of the authorization, they addressed letter dated 17.08.2021 to
the Respondent - Board requesting to be furnished a digital map showing
the administrative boundaries of Kanchipuram District (ID-9.61) for detailed
planning and development of the infrastructure. The Appellant informed the
Board that, while they had already procured the Survey of India Map in digital
form, which was the basis for setting up the administrative boundaries of the
GA by PNGRB, they should be provided the same as duly authenticated by
the Board. The Appellant also informed the PNGRB that the latter had issued
Tender for supplying GIS based Geographical Area maps, which was based

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 80 of 184

on the Survey of India map; and that they be informed if the Board had
finalised these agencies to provide the map, in which event, they could
procure the same from these agencies with due permission from the
PNGRB.

107. In reply, the Board, vide letter dated 23.09.2021, informed the
Appellant that the Tender issued in 2021 for supplying GIS based
Geographical Area maps was cancelled by the PNGRB and no agency was
hired under the said tender; along with the authorisation letters of the afore-
said GAs, a GIS map indicating the respective GA area and boundaries had
already been provided; the district boundaries with the GAs were considered
to be as defined by the Survey of India/ Office of the Registrar General &
Census Commissioner, India or the respective local authority, such as district
administration; and in case any confirmation was required in relation to a
district's boundary, the same shall be dealt directly with the district
Administration or Municipal Corporation.

108. The 2nd Respondent informed the Appellant, vide letter dated
22.02.2022, that, before commencing activities in their authorised
Geographical Area, the 2nd Respondent, as a duty-bound CGD entity, had
sought the original maps (digital maps) used by the PNGRB for the geo-
coordinates map, in order to dispel any confusion that could arise in the
identification of the boundary limits of the respective authorised entities; the
digital maps were received on 01.09.2020 from the PNGRB; these maps
were exactly as per the co-ordinates web hosted for the bid and later forming
part of the CGD authorisation.

109 The .SHP files, on which reliance is now placed on behalf of the
respondents to contend that location of each of these 19 CNG stations, on
application of the coordinates test, would fall within GA 9.62, were not made
available by the Board along with the application-cum-bid document web-

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 81 of 184

hosted on the PNGRB website on 12.04.2018. It is indeed disconcerting
that the Board should withhold such an important document and make it
available only to the 2nd Respondent at their request on 01.09.2020 after an
authorization was granted in their favour. Even worse is the Appellant's
case, in that they were not even furnished a copy of the .SHP files till during
the hearing of the present Appeal when, by order dated 20.09.2023, we had
directed the PNGRB to make available the .SHP files both to the appellant
and the 2nd Respondent.

110. In our order dated 20.09.2023, we had recorded the submission urged
on behalf of the Board that the .SHP file was ready and could be perused by
us. We had noted the submission urged on behalf of the Appellant that a
copy of the .SHP file relating to Chennai - Tiruvallur GA was made available
to the 2nd Respondent at their request, and fairness demanded that a copy
of the .SHP file, for both Chennai - Tiruvallur GA and Kanchipuram GA, be
made available to the Appellant also. We had also noted the stand of the
Board, during the hearing held on 13.09.2023, that the .SHP file was not
made available to the Appellant, since they had not made any such a
request; and it was because the 2nd Respondent had sought a copy thereof,
that it was made available to them. We had then observed that, since the
.shp file with respect to Chennai and Tiruvallur District GA had already been
made available to the 2nd Respondent, a copy of the .shp file of 9.61 and
9.62 be made available to the Appellant, and a copy of the Kanchipuram .shp
file be made available to the 2nd Respondent, within one week. It is only
thereafter that the .shp files of both the GAs were made available to the
Appellant, and a copy of the .shp file of Kanchipuram District GA was made
available to the 2nd Respondent.

111. The submission, urged on behalf of the Board, that the .SHP files were
made available at the request of the parties does not merit acceptance, since

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 82 of 184

the Board was obligated to share with the bidders all information relevant for
submission of bids, and since the Board had placed heavy reliance on the
.SHP files of both the GAs i.e. 9.61 and 9.62, they ought to have been made
available to all the bidders along with the ACBD, and should have been
shared with both the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent.

112. While we are satisfied that the Board ought to have made available the
.shp file of the respective GAs along with the ACBD itself, that does not mean
that we accept the submission of the appellant that the .shp file was not even
in existence in 2018 when bids were invited. The map vendor was asked to
submit a geo-referenced map, and we have no reason to disbelieve the
submission urged by Sri Rahul Sagar Sahai, learned Counsel for the Board,
that it is .shp file submitted by the map vendor which was made available to
the appellant (ie for both the GAs) and to the 2nd Respondent (ie for GA 9.61),
albeit pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal.

XI. THE .SHP FILES:

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

113. Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that, even if the shp file is considered, it also shows
that the total population of Kanchipuram GA is specified as 39,98,252; the
area corresponding to this population as per Census 2011 is the district of
Kanchipuram; as per the impugned order also, the primary obligation of the
vendor was to provide a map of the geographical area, and thereafter
provide population for the area so depicted and not vice--versa; the .shp file
inter alia contains the names and Code_2011 of the charge areas of the GA;
the 'Code_2011' of each of the charge areas corresponds exactly to the
codes of the respective talukas as per Census 2011, except that

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 83 of 184

Chengalpattu and Tirupuror have the same code since Chengalpattu was
bifurcated into two Talukas - Chengalpattu and Tiruporur in the year 2012,
after the 2011 Census; the outer boundary which emerges from the Talukas
is co-terminus with the GA boundary of GA 9.61; the entirety of these
Talukas, which together comprise the Kancheepuram District, were included
in the Kanchipuram District GA 9.61; the 2nd Respondent contended that
there is a mismatch between the number of talukas and charge area as there
are 11 charge areas in the authorisation map of GA 9.61 while number of
talukas of Kanchipuram District is 10; the afore-stated bifurcation of
Chengalpattu explains this increase from 10 to 11 in para 43(III) of the
impugned order; and the population and household figures of the Charge
Areas as stated in the .shp file add up to 39,98,252 and 10,06,245
respectively, which are exactly the corresponding figures in the Census
2011.

114. With reference to google earth platform, Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that,
without prejudice to the contention of the Appellant that Google Earth cannot
be referred to for the present proceedings, a placing of the pdf authorization
map on Google Earth also shows that the pink boundary in the map is a thick
boundary which, on scale, extends to about 400 metres at several places;
thus, it cannot be considered to be an accurate depiction of the GAs' extent;
at the stage of filing the Written Submissions, the 2nd Respondent has
produced a map allegedly plotting the Survey of India boundaries of Alandur,
Pallavaram and Sholinganallur Talukas on Google Earth Pro, to show that
parts of these Talukas fall in GA 9.62; there is no warrant for such a co-
ordinates and Google Earth based exercise (the validity whereof is not
accepted by the appellant) since as shown above, including on the basis of
.shp file, that these Talukas fall in GA 9.61; and the sub-district boundaries

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 84 of 184

shown in this map produced by the 2nd Respondent as part of GA 9.62, are
absent in the authorization map.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

115. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the 2nd Respondent, would submit that a .shp file is a simple, non-topological
format for storing the geometric location and attribute information of
geographic features; a .shp file depicts a geographic location through
geometry and may contain several 'layers'; PNGRB has placed on record
the .shp files for GA No. 9.61 and 9.62 before this Tribunal; these .shp files
have been used to prepare the map issued with the Bid Document; Geo-
coordinates are inherently embedded in the .shp files, unlike other layers
which are added/ imported; any data points/ tables (such as households,
population, names of town etc.) are added/ imported separately and are not
embedded in the .shp file; they are only indicative and need not necessarily
correspond to the geographic location depicted through geometry; the .shp
files given by the PNGRB match exactly with the GA map and the co-ordinates
given by the PNGRB for GA No. 9.61 and 9.62; the appellant had separately
added a 'Survey of India' layer in its presentation, which was not in the .shp
files given by the PNGRB; during the hearing before this Tribunal, the 2nd
Respondent showed, by way of a presentation, the exact location of the CNG
stations using the .shp files given by the PNGRB; the result is again the
same, all the CNG stations fall in the GA awarded to the 2nd Respondent; the
maps showing the location of the 19 CNG stations using the .shp files given
by the PNGRB are enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE -1; and the 2nd
Respondent had shown, during its submissions, that some CNG stations in
particular are located inside GA 9.62 but are very close (range of around
100-200 m) to the boundary of GA 9.61.

C. ANALYSIS:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 85 of 184

116. The 2nd Respondent claims to have ascertained the geo-coordinates
of 15 of the 19 CNG stations falling within the 9 Villages, which the Appellant
claims are located in the map of Kanchipuram District GA. The 2nd
Respondent contends that they had ascertained the geo-coordinates of
these 15 CNG Stations using a handheld GPS instrument by physically
visiting each of the 15 CNG stations. They have furnished details of the co-
ordinates of each of these 15 CNG Stations in the form of a table which reads
as under:

117. The longitude and latitudes, as reflected in the afore-said table, have
been extrapolated by the 2nd Respondent into the .SHP file and, from the
visual presentation made by them during the course of the hearing of this
Appeal, it does appear that, as a result, these 15 CNG stations fall within the
GA boundaries of Chennai-Thiruvallur Districts GA. A copy of the relevant
portion of the said map, as shown by the 2nd Respondent during its visual
presentation, is as under:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 86 of 184

118. In the light of the visual presentation made on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, even if we were to accept the Appellant's contention that the
PNGRB had not undertaken any independent exercise to determine the
exact location of these 19 CNG stations on the basis of co-ordinates, and
had only relied on what the 2nd Respondent had contended, it would only
require us, if we were to hold that it is only the co-ordinates test which is
applicable and all other parameters should be ignored, to direct the PNGRB
to undertake the exercise of determining the locations of these 19 CNG
stations on the basis of the co-ordinates given in the map/.shp file.

119. The clarification given by the Board in January 2020 that it has the
.SHP files for all the 136 GAs awarded in the 9th and 10th round of bidding
matters little, since the .SHP files ought to have been made available to the
bidders as an Annexure to the ACBD, which was web-hosted on the PNGRB
portal on 12.04.2018.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 87 of 184

120. Apart from their contention that no reliance can be placed on co-
ordinates as shown in the .SHP file, the Appellant submits, in the alternative,
that the .SHP file has several layers containing the information as recorded
in the map in Annexure-1. We see no reason to burden this judgement with
the voluminous maps filed both on behalf of the appellant and the 2nd
Respondent. It would, in our view, suffice to take note of one such map of
Kanchipuram District GA, which contains the division of the GA into different
charge areas, and also indicates the different layers, of the .SHP file, at the
extreme left of the said map:

121. Even if we were to ignore the additional layer of "Survey of India"

enclosed by the Appellant in its presentation, the fact remains that several
layers in the .SHP files, which was pointed out on behalf of the Appellant, do
also reflect the villages with population of more than 5000, the area in square
kilometres, the total number of households in the GA, the total population
etc all of which correspond to the information furnished in the map at

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 88 of 184

Annexure-1 of the ACBD, the effect of which shall be considered later in this
Order.

XII. FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO SHOW THE EXACT
LOCATION OF THE CNG STATIONS ON THE PNGRB MAP:

A. SUBMISSIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

122. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, would submit that the exact location of the CNG stations can
only be established/ ascertained using co-ordinates - and not on the basis
of addresses; as an example, if the exact location of this Tribunal is required
to be ascertained on a map, it can only be done using geo-coordinates
(latitude and longitude); the official address i.e. 'Core-4, Scope Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003' can, at best, give a vague idea of where
this Tribunal might be located; in the present case, despite this Tribunal's
order dated 05.04.2023, the appellant has failed to plot the exact location of
the CNG stations on the basis of the co-ordinates given in the map provided
by PNGRB at the time of bidding; instead, the appellant is causing confusion
by plotting the CNG stations on the basis of their addresses as per the
Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization (PESO); in another instance,
the appellant did plot the CNG stations on the basis of co-ordinates - not on
the GA map given by PNGRB but on the Survey of India map of Kanchipuram
during the hearing before this Tribunal, the appellant had argued that the
Affidavit dated 25.04.2023 was not controverted by the 2nd Respondent; this
is irrelevant as the same was not a mandate of the order dated 05.04.2023
passed by this Tribunal; firstly, it is impossible to exactly "plot" the location
of any point on earth on a map on the basis of "addresses" instead of the
exact "coordinates"; Secondly, even otherwise, the objective and jurisdiction
of PESO is not to verify the location of a CNG station; Thirdly, Survey of
India map has no sanctity for the 9th Round of Bidding, and the only relevant

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 89 of 184

map is the one given by PNGRB on the basis of which bids were submitted
by the appellant and the 2nd Respondent.

B. ANALYSIS:

123. As noted hereinabove, the visual presentation, made on behalf of the
2nd Respondent during the course of hearing of this appeal, does show that,
on the .shp files being placed on google earth platform, and if the co-
ordinates (ie the longitude and latitude ) of each of the 15 CNG Stations
(which the 2nd Respondent claims to have physically ascertained visiting
each of the 15 CNG Stations and using a hand-held GPS system) were to
be accepted, then they do appear to fall within the boundaries of GA 9.62 ie
Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts GA. We have no reason to disagree with the
submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd Respondent that the
Survey of India Map was irrelevant in the 9th Round of bidding, since the
Board had got maps prepared for each GA by awarding work orders to map
vendors. What we are, however, required to examine (which we shall do so
later in this Order) is whether the Co-ordinates test is the only test to be
applied to the exclusion of all other identification criteria, and whether the
Board intended to fix the boundaries of the GAs, for which it intended to invite
bids, only on the basis of co-ordinates.

XIII. IS APPLICATION OF THE CO-ORDINATES TEST THE ONLY
WAY OF LOCATING THE CNG STATIONS IN THE
AUTHORISED GA:

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

124. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that the case of the 2nd Respondent is that all of the
above factors are liable to be ignored, and one must look at only the
"coordinates" in the authorization maps and read the pink GA boundary in

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 90 of 184

reference thereto, and on that basis alone, determine in which GA do the
CNG stations in question fall; firstly, such a submission that, one part of a
document should be considered determinative, overlooking all other parts of
the document; ignoring the statutory and regulatory background in which the
document is set; and also ignoring the subsequent dealings of the parties
and their admissions contained therein, is contrary to all canons of
interpretation; consistent with this flawed approach, the 2nd Respondent has
sought to produce a new map with the written submissions, arguing that,
since one particular landmark, viz. the state highways, allegedly match in
the shp maps of GA 9.61 and GA 9.62, the placing of these maps is correct;
such a map does not further the 2nd Respondents' case; the plotting of CNG
stations on this map is not accepted by the appellant as correct; there is no
enquiry with respect to highways involved in the present case; in fact this
map contradicts the 2nd Respondent's oral submission that the CNG stations
in question are along State Highway 107; and the Board having clearly
determined GA 9.61 and GA9.62 as identical with the respective districts,
even if it is assumed, though not admitted, that any part of the depiction of
this decision in the map is inconsistent with the decision, it is at the most a
bona fide mistake made by the map vendor in the depictive exercise, which
cannot form the basis of the rights of parties.

B. ANALYSIS:

125. To answer this contention, urged on behalf of the appellant, we must
first ascertain whether the other tests suggested on behalf of the appellant,
(apart from the co-ordinates test) merit acceptance, and whether the Board
intended to prescribe any such test to identify the boundaries of the GAs for
which it intended to invite applications for the 9th round of bidding.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 91 of 184

126. Let us now consider the factors which the appellant seeks to place
reliance upon in support of their submission that all these 19 CNG Stations
are in fact located within GA.9.61 ie Kanchipuram District GA.

XIV. RELEVANCE OF CHARGE AREAS:

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

127. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that, while the 2nd Respondent has contended that
the charge Areas are not relevant at the stage of bidding, this submission is
clearly unfounded as shown by (i) regulatory determination made during the
5th CGD Bidding Round; (ii) Cl. 2.1.2 of ACBD; Sch. C; and for the reason
that the Charge Areas are the building blocks of a GA; this argument was
evidently taken since the Charge Areas of the respective GAs are clearly
identical with the Talukas of the corresponding Districts, and it is not even
the case of the Respondents that there are any co-ordinates of the Talukas
in the map issued with the ACBD and/ or authorization.

B. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT:

128. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, would submit that the appellant has placed emphasis on the
concept of 'charge areas' to argue that 'charge areas' are nothing but
'talukas' of a district; 'Charge areas' are not defined anywhere either in the

PNGRB Act
, the Authorization Regulations or in the Bid Document; it is also
not a bidding criteria for bidders under
Regulation 7
; it is, however,
commonly understood that charge areas are such areas in the authorized
area that a bidder is required to reach to meet the demands of the
consumers; the concept of charge areas is to ensure holistic/ equitable
development of the entire GA and they are merely a sub-set of the GA; under

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 92 of 184

the Authorization Regulations, the first step is to define the GA based on the
criteria given in Schedule A; it is only thereafter that the charge areas are fixed
within the boundary limits of the GA already decided; in other words, a GA is
like a cake which is prepared first and 'charge areas' are like slices of that
cake which can be cut only after the cake is prepared; it cannot be the other
way around; in fact, in GA No. 9.61 itself, the charge areas do not match with
the talukas of Kanchipuram; as per the District Census Handbook of 2011,
Kanchipuram had 10 talukas (Sriperumbudur, Tambaram, Alandur,
Sholinganallur, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram, Uthiramerur,
Tirukalukundram, Maduranthakam and Cheyyur); however, there are 11
charge areas in the map of GA No. 9.61; similarly, the charge areas of GA
No. 9.62 also do not match with the talukas of Tiruvallur District; there are 9
talukas in Tiruvallur as per the District Census Handbook of 2011
(Gummidipoondi, Ponneri, Uthukkottai, Tiruttani, Pallipattu, Thiruvallur.
Poonamallee, Ambattur, Mathavaram) whereas there are 10 charge areas
of Tiruvallur as per the GA map; in fact, in the map of GA No. 9.62, whole of
Chennai has been shown as one charge area i.e. CA-01, even though
Chennai District had 10 talukas existing since 2013; the appellant has also
relied upon the response dated 07.04.2015 to the clarifications sought during
the 5th Bidding Round to argue that charge areas are demarcated based on
tehsils/ mandals/ talukas etc; this is wholly irrelevant as the clarifications
applicable to the 5th Bidding Round in 2015 cannot be applied to the 9th
Bidding Round of 2018.

C. ANALYSIS:

129. As noted hereinabove, Clause 1.1.2 of the ACBD states that the
charge areas are also depicted in the map; if the bidding entity is finally
granted authorization, the entity shall be required to reach the charge areas
as stipulated in the 2008 Regulations. Similarly, Annexure 1 of the ACBD, ie

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 93 of 184

the map depicting the geographical area and charge area, directs bidders to
carefully study the geographical area and the charge areas before submitting
the bid.

130. Since the ACBD emphasises on the importance of charge areas, and
Annexure-1 thereto requires the bidders to consider both the Geographical
Area and the charge areas, we must express our inability to agree with the
submission that the charge areas are irrelevant. As the sum total of the area
in sq.km of each of these talukas is equivalent to the total area in sq.km of
the then Kanchipuram District, it is evident that each of the charge areas
depicted in the Kanchipuram District GA map ie GA 9.61 is equivalent to the
talukas of the then Kanchipuram District (ie prior to GO dated 04.01.2018),
or in other words the Kanchipuram District as was taken into consideration
by the PNGRB while inviting bids for the 9th round of bidding.

131. As shall be detailed later in this order, while it was always open to the
Board to fix all charge areas, other than as the Talukas of a District, the map
in Annexure-1 of Kanchipuram District GA does appear to show that the
charge areas were taken to be the Talukas of the then Kanchipuram District.
It is no doubt true, as is submitted on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, that, in
terms of the 2011 Census Handbook, Kanchipuram District had 10 Talukas
It is because Chengalpattu Taluka was subdivided, after the 2011 Census,
into two Talukas in the year 2012, ie into Chengalpattu and Tiruporur talukas,
and as the map was evidently prepared on the basis of the Kanchipuram
District as it existed prior to GO dated 04.01.2018, that the total number of
Talukas are shown in the map in Annexure-1 of GA 9.61 as 11. We had no
occasion to consider the talukas of Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts, nor was it
even argued during the course of oral hearing, in as much as the appellant
makes no claim over any part of the then Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts, and
it is the 2nd Respondent which claims that a part of the then Kanchipuram

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 94 of 184

District falls within the boundaries of their GA ie Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts
GA (ie GA 9.62).

132. Unlike with respect to the Geographical area, the map in Annexure-1
of the ACBD does not record the co-ordinates of each of the Talukas. Taking
into consideration the fact that the area in sq km of each of the talukas, the
population of each of the talukas and the number of households in each of
these talukas (as recorded in the 2011 Census Handbook), when clubbed
together, represent the area in sq.km, the population and the number of
households of the then Kanchipuram District, and is reflected on the right
side of the map in Annexure-1 as the area in sq.km, the population and the
number of households of Kanchipuram District GA, it does appear that the
demarcated charge areas in the said map correspond to the Talukas of the
then Kanchipuram district, and no part of any of these charge areas
(Talukas) in Kanchipuram GA are shown in the GA map of 9.62 ie Chennai
& Tiruvallur Districts GA.

XVI. RELEVANCE OF THE TOWNS AND VILLAGES REFERRED
IN THE MAP:

A. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

133. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that (a) Towns/ Villages - within the image part of
the authorization maps, the important towns and villages have been marked;
within the GA boundary of the authorisation map of GA 9.61, towns
Paraniputhur; Nandanvakkam; Meenabakkam; St. Thomas Mount-cum-
Pallavaram; Alandur; Kottivakkam; Neelankarai; Pallikaranai; and
Madippakkam, where 15 of the 19 CNG stations, in respect of which the
complaint was filed are admittedly located, have been specifically named
and marked; none of these towns are marked in the map of GA 9.62; (The
remaining 4 CNG Stations are located in villages with a population less than

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 95 of 184

5,000 as per Census 2011, which are not marked in either of the maps but
are admittedly part of GA 9.61); the Towns of Kanchipuram District, as per
Census 2011. form part of attribute data as also the boundary data of the
shp file of GA 9.61; their population is also mentioned which matches their
population as per Census 2011; these towns have thus been included in the
Kanchipuram District GA 9.61 as per .shp file by name in the attribute data,
by being pictorially depicted within the GA; and by their entire population
being included in the attribute data; this also includes the towns mentioned
above, where 15 of the 19 CNG stations are located; and all the villages with
population 5,000 or more (total 38 in number) of Kanchipuram District as per
Census 2011 form part of attribute data of the .shp file of GA 9.61, with their
entire population included.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

134. With respect to the appellant's claim that the disputed 19 CNG stations
fall within GA No. 9.61 as the official address of the said stations is in the
villages/ towns shown (as 'dots'/ points) in the PNGRB map/ .shp file given
by the PNGRB, Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the 2nd Respondent, would submit that any claims over the GA awarded to
the 2nd Respondent, merely on the basis of names of villages/ towns, is not
correct as the nomenclature cannot prevail over the geo-coordinates that
give precise contours of the GA boundary; the instant dispute is not whether
the GA boundary has been properly determined or not; but a commercial
dispute concerning the location of certain CNG stations; further, the villages/
towns shown in the appellant's map are not location points/ coordinates;
these villages/ towns run into several kilometres; as examples, Alandur is
around 19.50 sq. kms and Pallavaram is about 12.92 sq. kms and spread
into GA No. 9.62 even though they are shown by way of 'dots'/ points in GA
9.61 map; significantly, even as per the appellant , Alandur is about 26 sq.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 96 of 184

km; in any event, as per the appellant's own Detailed Feasibility Report
(DFR), a part of Alandur is in the Chennai District; in response to a query
from this Tribunal as to whether Alandur, Sholinganallur and any other areas
spread over both GA Nos. 9.61 as well as 9.62, the 2nd Respondent is
placing on record a map demonstrating that these areas indeed spread over
both GAs; the said map is enclosed as ANNEXURE - 2; therefore, even if a
CNG station has its official address in a village shown to be on the
appellant's map, it does not necessarily mean that the location/ geo-
coordinates of the CNG station will also always fall within the GA awarded
to the appellant.

C. ANALYSIS:

135. The 2nd Respondent, in its letter addressed to the Appellant on
22.02.2022, has itself stated that, according to them, a part of Kanchipuram
District fell within GA No. 9.62 ie Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts GA. The map
in Annexure 1 with respect to each of these GAs contains various details,
one among which is the name of the villages whose population is 5000 or
more. 15 of these 19 CNG stations fall in 9 villages, with a population of 5000
and more, in the then Kanchipuram District. The location of these 9 villages
have been referred to and identified in the map in Annexure 1 to fall within
GA No. 9.61 ie Kanchipuram District GA.

136. If, as is now contended before us, a part of Alandur and Pallavaram
villages also fall within GA 9.62, and that was the intention of the Board, then
the GA 9.62 (Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts GA) map should have reflected the
names of these villages, since it is not in dispute that the population of these
villages exceed 5000 in number. The very fact that all these 9 villages/towns
are reflected only in the physical map of GA 9.61 ie Kanchipuram District GA
does lend support to the appellant's submission that the subject 19 CNG
Stations fall within Kanchipuram District GA ie GA 9.61.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 97 of 184

XVII. GA AND DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN IN THE MAP:

A. SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT:

137. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit, with respect to the boundary line, that the
authorisation maps show the GA boundary in dotted pink line and district
boundary with solid black line; this, besides being evident from a bare
perusal of the authorization maps, is also the admitted position of the Board
(in the impugned order - para 46); a bare perusal of the authorization maps
also shows that these boundaries completely overlap each other in both the
maps, further establishing the identity of the GA and the respective districts;
even as per the .shp file, the GA boundary is co-terminus with the District
boundary as considered by PNGRB both for Kanchipuram District GA 9.61
and Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts GA 9.62; in the .shp file also, there is no
overlap between the Kanchipuram District and GA of Chennai & Tiruvallur,
showing that no part of Kanchipuram District was, or was intended to be,
included in GA 9.62.

138. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the 2nd Respondent has
taken inconsistent stands with respect to the depiction of the boundary; on
the one hand it is contended that the only relevant boundary is the GA
boundary indicated in pink and "the district boundary indicated in 'black' has
no relevance whatsoever"; on the other hand, it has sought to treat the black
district boundary line as sacrosanct, and argued that, since the authorization
map shows a 'hump' area, below the 'black district boundary' of Chennai, as
included in GA 9.62, a part of Kanchipuram must be held to have been
included in GA 9.62; however, as has been borne out from the record, no
part of Kanchipuram ever came to be included in GA 9.62; in fact, while it
has been the stand of the Board as well as the 2nd Respondent, taken orally

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 98 of 184

for the first time before this Tribunal, that the hump portion in GA 9.62 has
been carved out of Kanchipuram District and given to the 2nd Respondent,
this contention is without any basis nor is there even a whisper, in the
pleadings of the 2nd Respondent before the PNGRB or in the pleadings/
Affidavits filed by the 2nd Respondent and PNGRB before this Tribunal, and/
or in the record of the Board produced before the court.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT:

139. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, would submit that, as part of the 9th Bidding Round, PNGRB
supplied a geo-referenced map with every GA as part of the tender document
itself; in contrast, in the 11th Bidding Round, the PNGRB did not supply a
map for the GAs to be authorized; unlike the 9th bidding round which was a
'map' round, PNGRB did not supply a map for the GAs to be authorised under
the 11th bidding round ('no-map' round); this is evident from Clause 1.1 of the
Bid Document for the 11th bidding round: (a) Firstly, as part of Annexure-1 of
the Bid Document, only charge areas within the GA were given (Clause
1.1.1); (b) Secondly, it was also provided that the district boundary of the GA
shall be as defined by the respective local authority, such as district
administration. While it was further provided that the bidders may procure
the maps for identification of district and charge areas boundaries from
Survey of India, PNGRB made it clear that the boundary "should be duly
vetted by district administration for correctness on ground" (Clause 1.1.2), (c)
Thirdly, PNGRB also made it clear that it "shall have no role in defining the
boundary, except the nomenclature of that particular district and charge
areas falling in the GA" (Clause 1.1.2), (d) Fourthly, as part of Annexure-1
(Charge Areas of the GA) read with the Corrigendum issued by PNGRB on
18.11.2021, PNGRB clarified that in case any charge area had been merged/
bifurcated/ renamed, then the charge area and name as on the date of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 99 of 184

advertisement shall prevail; (e ) On 14.02.2022, Schedule-D of the
Regulation was amended and it was inserted that the authorized area "for
laying, building, operating or expanding the proposed CGD network shall
cover the following Charge Areas, as depicted in indicative and not to scale
drawing or map...". The authorization given to the successful bidders of the
11th Bidding Round also specifically states the name of the district and the
charge area; (f) reference may also be made to the outline of charge areas
supplied with a sample authorizations for the 11th Bidding Round, and the
said outline states that it is "indicative, non GIS and not to scale"; in
conclusion, the terms of the 11th CGD Bidding Round were completely
different; if the contention of the appellant were to be accepted, there would
be no difference between the terms of 9th and 11th Bidding Rounds; it is also
evident that, whenever PNGRB decided to invite bids on the basis of the
district boundary, it clearly mentioned the same; PNGRB also made it clear
that the boundary of the GA based on district shall be that which is prevalent
as on the date of the bid, and not based on the last Census data i.e. 2011;
and thus, even under the district approach, the boundary to be relied upon
was the one as on the date of bidding.

140. On the contention of the appellant that the GA boundary indicated in
'pink' and the district boundary in 'black' overlap, and this shows that the
GA and district boundaries are the same, Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior
Counsel. would submit that, Firstly the 'district' boundary/ 'black line' is
wholly irrelevant for the 9th Round; GA boundary/ 'pink line' is the only
relevant consideration; if the appellant's contention is accepted, it will cause
chaos and uncertainty as the GA map given by PNGRB will have no
sanctity; Secondly, PNGRB has itself admitted before this Tribunal that
there was an error in depicting the district by way of the 'black' line; Thirdly,
without prejudice to the above, 'district' boundary does not necessarily mean
the entire district in all cases; it only means that part of the district which

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 100 of 184

has been awarded as part of the GA in question; there are several
instances in the 9th Bidding Round itself where PNGRB has used the 'black'
line to indicate even 'part' districts:

Name of GA Submissions
Navsari (Except Area
a. Only a part of Surat district is part of
Already Authorised), Surat
GA of 9.10.
(Except Area Already
b. However, the 'black' line can still be
Authorised) & Tapi (Except
seen all along (Map is at Pg. 100 of
Area Already Authorised) &
R- 3).
Dang District (GA 9.10)
a. Only a part of Valsad district is included
as part of GA 9.39.
Valsad (Except Area
b. However, the end of the boundary of GA
Already Authorised), Dhule
contains indicates the 'black' line as the
& Nashik Districts (GA 9.39)
district boundary. This further shows that
the district boundary indicated in 'black'
has no relevance
(Map is at Pg. 101 of R- 3).
a. GA 9.83 includes a part of (but not the
entire) Sambhal and Amroha districts.
This is evident from the fact that
Moradabad (Except 'Chandausi' - which forms a part of
Area Already Sambhal district - is specifically included

Authorised) District+ the in the map for GA No. 9.83. A 'black' line
area granted under indicating the district boundary is also

Regulation 18
. (GA 9.83) given in the map.

b. Sambhal district (except the area
already awarded as part of GA No. 9.83)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 101 of 184

was subsequently awarded as part of the
11th Bidding
Round (Map is at Pg. 99 of R- 3).

141. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel, would further ,submit that the
appellant, in its oral submissions, placed reliance on the .shp file given by
the PNGRB to argue that the GA boundary and district boundary coalesce
for GA Nos. 9.61 and 9.62, and "depiction of district boundary of
Kanchipuram District in the .shp file is not correct, as it is inconsistent with the
Survey of India Boundary"; the appellant has, thus, acknowledged that
'district' layer in the . shp file given by t h e PNGRB does not match with
the administrative district boundary as per Survey of India; this substantiates
the 2nd Respondent's case and establishes beyond doubt that PNGRB has
not awarded GAs on the basis of 'district' concept; this further shows that the
appellant is wrong in using the Survey of India map to plot the CNG stations
on the basis of coordinates, when it was specifically directed by this Tribunal,
vide order dated 05.04.2023, to enclose maps drawn on the basis of the
PNGRB maps which refer to the co-ordinates; the appellant deliberately did
not comply with this order as it would have shown that all 19 CNG stations
fall in the GA awarded to the 2nd Respondent..

C. ANALYSIS:

142. In para 46 of the impugned order, the Board has stated that the GIS
map for GA 9.62 clearly demarcate the GA boundaries with a pink line and
the District boundary with a black line. A perusal of the map of GA 9.61 also
shows that, while the GA boundaries are recorded in the form of a pink line,
the District boundaries are recorded in the form of a black line, both of which
overlap, necessitating the conclusion that the boundaries of Kanchipuram
District GA 9.61 is the same as the boundaries of the then Kanchipuram

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 102 of 184

District. We find force in the submission, urged on behalf of the Appellant,
that a perusal of the authorised map does show that the GA boundary in pink
overlaps the District boundary line in black of both GAs 9.61 and 9.62.

143. It is unnecessary for us to examine what the Board did in the 11th
bidding round, since the present dispute relates to the 9th bidding round.
While a copy of the map of every GA was enclosed along with the ACBD in
the 9th bidding round, the maps could only have been prepared on the basis
of what the Board had identified as the GA for which bids were to be invited.
It is not in dispute that the map does contain the co-ordinates of GA 9.61. As
shall be elaborated later in this Order, there is nothing on the record to show
that the Board intended to identify the GA boundaries on the basis of co-
ordinates alone. On the contrary, the material on record does show that the
Board had intended, in so far as GAs 9.61 and 9.62 were concerned, to treat
these GAs as co-terminus with the then Kanchipuram District and the then
Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts respectively.

144. We see no reason to undertake an exercise of examining the terms
and conditions of the 11th bidding round since the present case is confined
only to the 9th bidding round, that too with respect to the authorised entities
of GAs 9.61 and 9.62. Suffice it to observe that, since we have refused to
examine the appellant's contention regarding non-existence of co-ordinates
in the map as it is contrary to the pleadings on record, we must express our
inability to also examine the 2nd Respondent's contentions regarding the
hump part of Kanchipuram District falling within their GA, as it is neither
supported by pleadings both before the PNGRB and later before this
Tribunal, nor is there a reference to any such hump in the impugned order.

145. Except to state that the black line in the map is irrelevant, no reasons
are forthcoming for the 2nd Respondent's conclusion regarding its
irrelevance. The submissions made by the Counsel for the Board, during

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 103 of 184

the course of hearing of the present appeal, cannot be treated as the
submission made by the Board, in the absence of any affidavit being placed
by the Board in this regard. If the black line shown in the map is erroneous,
as is now claimed, the Board was then duty bound to explain as to when it
came to know of the error and as to how such an error had occured. The
Board was then obligated to explain as to where the district boundaries are
reflected. This submission, of the black line being in error, appears to have
been made only to sustain the impugned judgement, that too by the
counsel for the Board, and not by the Board itself. The submission that the
District boundary does not mean the entire District, and refers to only that
part which falls within the GA, is only to be noted to be rejected, for If that
were to be so, then providing for the District boundary was wholly
unnecessary.

146.
In
Adani Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board
,
(2020) 4 SCC 529, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was
approached only with respect to GAs 51, 61 and 62, (ie GAs 9.51, 9.61 and
9.62), the Board's treatment of other GAs could not be decisive in
determining the legality of the authorisation granted in GAs 51, 61 and 62,
especially where the Board's actions in respect of the other GAs had not
been independently challenged; and to decide the sole question in the said
appeal, the presence and hearing of other bidders was not necessary.
Reference to other GAs, by the counsel for the 2nd Respondent, is wholly
extraneous to the present lis, and it would be inappropriate for us, in light of
the judgement of the Supreme Court in Adani Gas. to take note of GAs
which do not form part of the dispute in the present appeal.

XVIII. DOES THE NAME OF THE GA INDICATE THAT THE GAs
WERE CARVED OUT ON THE BASIS OF DISTRICTS:

A. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 104 of 184

147. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit, with respect to the name of the GA, that the names
of the GAs in question also show that they correspond to the entirety of their
respective districts with no area being excluded from the entire district as
part of the authorization; the only reasonable interpretation of the
authorisations, issued to the appellant and the 2nd Respondent, is that they
were issued for the respective districts; they comprise of the Talukas of the
respective Districts with GA 9.61 including the three Talukas where the CNG
stations in question are located; and the respective GAs including the towns
and villages of the corresponding districts, and in particular, GA 9.61
including the towns where the CNG stations in question are admittedly
located.

B. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE PNGRB:

148. On the issue of naming of GAs, Sri Rahul Sagar Sahai, Learned
Counsel for the PNGRB, would submit that reliance was also placed on the
fact that the instant GA was named "Kanchipuram District GA" in the
authorization and other places, and therefore the entire district should be
considered as the GA based on the name; this argument is also wrong and.
in fact, is contrary to the Appellant's own stand in the Draft Feasibility Report
("DFR"); in the DFR submitted by them, the Appellant mentioned that parts
of Chennai were also part of its GA, however, for the purpose of "study
region", it is referring to the same as Kanchipuram District GA; at page 348,
the DFR states that "for all intent and purposes, the study region in the report
is referred to as "Kancheepuram District GA"; accordingly, the name used by
PNGRB and by entities, including the Appellant, were only for reference
purposes and cannot be used to determine the boundary; the appellant was
confusing two entirely different concepts: the GA boundary and the district
boundary serve completely different purposes; the demarcation of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 105 of 184

boundary of a district is at the discretion of the Central/ State Government,
and may undergo change with time for better administration as and when
the change is notified; on the other hand, the GA boundary is sacrosanct and
cannot be altered post the bid; the Impugned Judgment also stated that the
Appellant had placed a lot of emphasis on the Survey of India digital maps,
and other maps obtained from local authorities, in support of its complaint;
however, PNGRB observed that, until the 10th CGD Bidding Round, the GAs
authorized by PNGRB had always been accompanied by the map with geo-
coordinates forming part of the authorization letter; the concept of referring
to the maps of Survey of India has been introduced only from the 11th CGD
Bidding Round; in the 11th CGD Bidding Round, the bid document did not
include the map of the GA which was proposed to be awarded; and,. instead,
PNGRB asked the bidders to procure the maps for identification of district
and charge area boundaries from the Survey of India.

C. ANALYSIS:

149. We see no reason to delve into the contentions under this head, since
the other details referred to hereinabove do appear to support the appellant's
contention that the Board intended to carve out GA 9.61 and 9.62 in terms
of the then existing Kanchipuram District and Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts.
The villages with population of over 5000, where 15 of the CNG Stations
have been set up, have all be identified as being located in the GA 9.61 map,
and fall within the Talukas which constitute the charge areas of Kanchipuram
District GA. As the appellant has not even contended before us that any part
of Chennai District falls within Kanchipuram District GA, we see no reason
to examine the contents of the draft feasibility report to ascertain whether
such a claim had been put forth, on behalf of the Appellant, therein. While
the purposes which the GA boundary and the District boundary serve may
not be the same, that does not mean that the GA boundary can, in no case,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 106 of 184

be the same as the District boundary. As shall be elaborated later in this
Order, the material on record does not show that the Board intended to
identify the boundaries of these two GAs on the basis of co-ordinates, as all
other factors lend support to the appellant's submission that these two GAs
were intended to be identified on the basis of the boundaries of their
respective Districts.

150. The financial criteria specified in
Regulation 5(6)(e)
, and the
requirement of furnishing a bid bond, in the form of Bank Guarantee or
demand draft or pay order, under
Regulation 5(6)(h)
of the 2008
Regulations, both refer to the 2011 Census.
Regulation 5
of the 2008
Regulations relates to the criteria for selection of entity for expression of
interest route.
Regulation 5(6)
requires the Board to scrutinize the bids
received in response to the advertisement in respect of only those entities
which fulfill the following minimum eligibility criteria, namely, among others,

(e) the entity has adequate financial strength to execute the proposed
project, operate and maintain the same in the authorized area and shall
meet the following financial criterion to qualify for bidding for a single CGD
network, namely:-

Population in the Minimum net worth of the bidder
geographical entity
area [as per latest census
of India]
(1) (2)
5 million or more Rs.1,500 million for a population of 5
million, plus additional Rs. 300
million for each 1 million of
population or part thereof, in excess
of 5 million (refer Note - 3)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 107 of 184

2 million or more but less Rs.1,000 million
than 5 million
1 million or more but less Rs. 750 million
than 2 million

0.5 million or more but less Rs.500 million
than 1 million
0.25 million or more but Rs.250 million
less than 0.50 million
0.1 million or more but less Rs.100 million
than 0.25 million
Less than 0.1 million Rs.50 million
Note - 1 The above minimum net-worth is applicable in case the
bidder entity bids for a single geographical area in a particular
bidding round.

Note - 2 In case a bidder entity bids for more than one
geographical area, then, the minimum net-worth requirement
shall be calculated by considering 100% of minimum net-worth
required for the bidded geographical area having the highest
population, plus 20% of minimum net-worth required for each of
the other geographical areas. For example, if a bidder has bidded
for four geographical areas namely A, B,C and D and out of these
four geographical areas, C has the highest population, then
minimum net-worth requirement shall be calculated as minimum
net-worth requirement of C plus 20% of minimum net-worth
requirements for A, B and D each.

Note - 3 For example, if the population is 8.4 million, then the
minimum net-worth required shall be Rs. 2,700 million (i.e. Rs.
1,500 million for initial 5 million of population, plus Rs. 1,200
million for 3.4 million of population in excess of 5 million).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 108 of 184

(i) Net-worth of a bidder entity shall be computed as per Schedule-K.

151.
Regulation 5(6)(h)
requires the entity to furnish a bid bond, in the form
of Bank Guarantee or demand draft or pay order from any scheduled bank
drawn in favour of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board
payable at New Delhi] for an amount equal to- (i) rupees fifty million for a
population of five million and proportionately higher amount for population
of more than five million; (ii) rupees thirty million for a population of one
million and more but less than five million; (iii) rupees twenty million for a
population of half a million and more but less than one million; (iv) rupees
fifteen million for a population of quarter of a million and more but less than
half a million; (v) rupees ten million for a population of one-tenth of a million
and more but less than quarter of a million; and (vi) rupees five million for a
population less than one-tenth of a million.

152. While the purposes served by both
Regulation 5(6)(e)
and
5(6)(h)
of
the 2008 Regulations may well be to assess the financial strength of the
applicant entity, and to quantify the bid bond amount to be submitted by
them, it is relevant to note that both these requirements are based on the
population of the Geographical area as per the last census ie the 2011
Census. Assessment of financial strength and quantification of the bid bond
is confined to the population of the geographical area for which the bid has
been submitted, and not beyond. Consequently, population of the
Geographical area is an indicator of the boundaries of the GA, for it is only
within the GA can the successful bidder operate on its being authorised by
the Board to do so. As noted hereinabove, the Survey of India map is of no
consequence, nor is the conditions stipulated in the 11th round of bidding of
any relevance, to the present lis.

153. Suffice it for us to hold that, accepting the submission urged on behalf
of the second Respondent that it is only the GA co-ordinates of each of these

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 109 of 184

sub-stations which are required to be taken into consideration, would require
us to ignore every other detail referred to in the map in Annexure 1. It is not
the nomenclature of the villages alone which is being taken note of, but
various other information reflected in the maps of these two Gas which have
been considered. Such information appears to support the appellant's
submission that GA 9.61, ie Kanchipuram District GA, is co-terminus with
Kanchipuram District as it existed just prior to GO dated 04.01.2018.

154. It is evident, from what has been stated hereinabove, that, while
application of the co-ordinates test may result in the 19 CNG Stations being
held to fall within GA 9.62 ie Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts GA, all other
factors indicate that the boundary of Kanchipuram District GA is co-terminus
with the boundary of the then Kanchipuram District. As it is even the 2nd
Respondent's case that all these 19 CNG Stations fell within the then
Kanchipuram District, these CNG Stations must then be held to fall within
Kanchipuram District GA.

155. The only manner in which this issue can be resolved is to ascertain
what the
PNGRB Act
and the 2008 Regulations required of the Board
regarding determination of the GA, and what the PNGRB intended to specify
as the GA and its boundaries. As shall be elaborated later in this Order,

Section 19
of the PNGRB Act read with
Regulation 2(1)(c)
,
5(4)
and
Schedule A of the 2008 Regulations obligate the Board to clearly identify the
boundaries of the GA for which bids are to be invited.

XIX. IS THE AUTHORIZATION A STATUTORY CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE PARTIES?

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

156. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that the authorization issued for GA 9.61 to the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 110 of 184

appellant is and that issued to the 2nd Respondent for GA 9.62 are statutory
contracts, between the respective entities and PNGRB, which fall for
interpretation in light of the entire statutory and regulatory background, and
have the following features: (a) the authorisation issued to the 2nd
Respondent states that it has been issued for laying a CGD network "in the
Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts in the State of Tamil Nadu", and the
authorisation issued to the appellant states that it has been issued for the
Kanchipuram Districts in the State of Tamil Nadu"; (b) Area - the
authorization of the 2nd Respondent states that the authorised Area shall
cover an area of 3569.00 sq km; it is the same area which is mentioned in
the map annexed to the authorization; this is also the exact area of GA 9.62
as per the work order issued to the map vendor [p. 197 at 193/File-3]; this
area is the sum of the areas of Chennai (175 sq km) and Tiruvallur (3394 sq
km) Districts as per Census 2011 [pp. 2, 36, 38/C5]; a detailed break-up of
the areas of Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts, in terms of Talukas, show that
the total area exactly matches the sum of the areas of the Talukas of the
Districts as per Census 2011; it was specifically contended, by the appellant
before the Board, that this total area would stand enhanced if the 2nd
Respondent's contention is accepted; in response, the 2nd Respondent did
not dispute this, but argued that it is possible that the GA area number may
be more or less; during the course of oral arguments, on a specific query
being put by the Bench, it was admitted by the 8iuik9o0Learned Counsel for
the 2nd Respondent that the said figure of "3569.00 sq km" is "incorrect" (i.e.,
it is inconsistent with the 2nd Respondent's case); with respect to the
appellant, the area mentioned in the authorisation map is 4483 sq km, which
is also the area of Kanchipuram District as per Census 2011; it is the detailed
break-up of the sum of the areas of the Talukas of Kanchipuram District as
per Census 2011; it also matches the area communicated to the map vendor
[p. 197 at 193/File-3]; and this was reiterated by the Board vide letter dated

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 111 of 184

31.01.2022; had any area from Kanchipuram District been carved out of GA
9.61, the area of GA 9.61 would have stood reduced from 4483 sq.km (c)
Population - the authorisation maps also mention the population of the
respective GAs' which exactly match the population of the respective
districts as per Census 2011; and the detailed break-up of the population
into Talukas also shows that the sum of population of the Talukas of the
respective districts exactly match the population of the GA specified in the
authorisation map; vide addendum dated 21.06.2018, it was declared by
PNGRB that, for population, the data given in tender documents and
subsequent corrigendum and addendum shall be final and binding; this
addendum was duly signed by all parties including the 2nd Respondent, and
was submitted as part of the bid document; the population "of the
Geographical Area" as per Census 2011 is crucial for determination of
eligibility as also grant of authorization (Reg 5(6)(e) and Reg 9); the 2nd
Respondent, evidently, submitted a bid bond of Rs. 8,37,48,360, which is
exactly ten times the population of Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts as per
Census 2011; thus, the population data is final and binding on the parties;
this also shows that no part of the Kanchipuram District has been included
in GA 9.62; (d) Households - similarly, the authorization maps contain the
number of households of each of the GAs which exactly match the number
of households in the respective districts; household numbers are indicated,
since the number of PNG connections form a significant part of the bid, with
weightage of 50%. (Reg. 7(1)(a)); the number of PNG connections that a
bidder may offer to connect is a direct function of the number of households
in the GA; in the present case, when the reasonability of the bids for PNG
connections by the appellant for GA 9.61 and the 2nd Respondent for GA
9.62 came into question, the Board assessed reasonability of the bids for the
respective GAs by considering the household numbers for the respective
'districts' as per Census 2011, projecting them to the year 2026 by which the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 112 of 184

PNG target is to be completed (considering the authorisation year as 2018)
and then comparing the figures; the validity of the Board's decision was
upheld by the Supreme Court in Adani Gas Limited v. PNGRB & Ors.,
(2020) 4 SCC 529; the prime question before the Court in that case was that,
for the purpose of judging reasonability of the bids, which data is to be
considered, i.e., what would be the nature of data, of which date, and of
which geographical unit; the Court considered the above Board agenda note
dated 28.08.2018; the Board also clearly submitted before the Court that it
had made the calculations as per basic data sheet of the 'respective districts
of the GA' according to the latest census data; in fact, in Civil Appeal No.
3289 and 2019 which was filed by the 2nd Respondent before the Supreme
Court, it stated that "as per the Census of 2011, the number of households
existing in the GA of Chennai and Tiruvallur was 21,01,931", which was the
combined number of households for Chennai and Tiruvallur districts as per
Census 2011; none of the parties, including the 2nd Respondent, contended
that the data to be used for ascertaining reasonability of the bids was to be
not of the district, but of a different area, to be ascertained on the basis of
co-ordinates; a bare reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court shows
that all parties proceeded on the assumption that the respective GAs were
identical to the corresponding districts; this exercise conducted by the Board
and sustained by it before the Supreme Court, constitutes a clear admission
on the part of the Board that the respective GAs are co-extensive with the
corresponding Districts; the 2nd Respondent did not seek any correction in
the said household numbers, and is now bound by the said figures in the
map; in the same round, in respect of GA-72, upon part of a district being
carved out of the district, PNGRB reduced the number of households; the
2nd Respondent had objected to the extent of reduction; and it was held by
PNGRB that the 2nd Respondent was bound by the data given in the ACBD
since the finality and binding nature of the data was accepted by all bidders

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 113 of 184

by signing the addendum dated 21.06.2018; this clearly establishes the
relevance and binding nature of the household data stated in the map issued
with the Authorization (e) Charge Areas/ Sub-districts - the authorisation
maps list the Charge Areas on the right hand side, and within the image of
the GA, the boundaries of the charge areas are marked and their names are
indicated; these boundaries are described on the right hand side under
Legends as "SUB-DISTRICT BOUNDARY"; the charge areas and sub-
districts have been used inter-changeably in the map, consistent with the
regulatory determination; in fact, the charge areas, by name, are the talukas
of the respective districts; it is an admitted position that the 19 CNG stations
in question fall in Talukas: Alandur, Sholinganallur and Sriperumbudur;
these Talukas constitute Charge Areas CA-01, CA-06 and CA-07 of GA 9.61
respectively, as noted in the impugned order as well.

A. ANALYSIS:

157. As noted hereinabove, the Appellant was granted an authorisation, for
Kanchipuram district GA (ie GA 9.61), by the PNGRB vide letter dated
26.09.2018. Para 1 of the said authorisation recorded the area in square
kilometres of the said GA as 6936.50 square kilometres. The Appellant, vide
letter dated 19.01.2022, brought this error, in the authorisation granted to
them for Kanchipuram District GA, to the notice of the Board. The PNGRB,
by its letter dated 31.01.2022, informed the Appellant that, although the
tender document and the map issued in Schedule D (authorisation letter)
had mentioned the correct area as 4483 square kilometres, inadvertently the
same had been written as 6936.50 square kilometres in Para-1 of Schedule
D; and, in view of the above, the authorised area mentioned at Para-1 of
Schedule D should be read as 4483 square kilometres. It is clear therefore
that, as recently as 31.01.2022 (long after the bids were invited and finalised
and authorisation was granted for both the GAs), the Board acknowledges

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 114 of 184

the total area in sq.kms of GA 9.61 to be 4483 square kilometres which
corresponds to the area in sq.kms of the then Kanchipuram District as per
the 2011 Census Handbook.

158. We see no reason to examine the Appellant's contentions, on an
analysis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Adani Gas Limited vs.
PNGRB (24 SCC 529), since we have already referred to the said Judgment
in detail earlier in this order. We had also observed earlier in this Order that
there was force in the submission of the Appellant that the Talukas of the
then Kanchipuram district constituted the charge areas of Kanchipuram
District GA for which the Appellant was granted an authorisation.
Consequently, since these 19 CNG stations fall within Alandur,
Sholinganallur, and Sriperumbudur Talukas of Kanchipuram District, which
corresponds to charge areas CA-01, CA-06, and CA-07 of GA 9.61, it does
appear that these 19 CNG stations fall within the charge areas of
Kanchipuram district GA.

159. While we agree with the submission that the authorisation issued to
the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent by the PNGRB may well constitute a
statutory contract, we do not wish to delve on this aspect in the light of what
we have held hereinabove, or to express any opinion on the submission
urged on behalf of the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent as to what
transpired during the oral hearing, though we find a reference thereto in the
written submissions not to be in good taste. Questions posed by the Bench,
during the oral hearing of the appeal, are primarily for eliciting necessary
information, and is not a conclusive expression of its views which must await
the final judgement. We wish to say no more.

XX. STATUTORY SCHEME:

A. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 115 of 184

160. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that, as the subject contract is a statutory contract,
everything leading to the formation of the contract, including the final
authorization issued, is governed by the Act and the Regulations; since
PNGRB is a regulator, even the regulatory determination made by it are
elevated to the level of Regulations. (NHAI v. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch,
(2021) 11 SCC 566); this is owing to the highly specialized and dynamic
nature of the field meant to be regulated; a regulatory determination once
made, equally binds the regulator, and cannot be deviated from except for
shown public interest.
((
SEBI v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan
, (2023) 2 SCC 643;

Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited and Another v. Competition
Commission of India and Another
, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8032 at para

119); the Board identifies a 'specified geographic area' in which it considers
it necessary or expedient to develop the public infrastructure of a CGD
network; it then gives wide publicity of its intention, i.e., the intention to
develop a CGD network in such specified area (
S. 19(1)
); the statutory
requirement of giving wide publicity accords sanctity to the area publicized,
and the same cannot be deviated from in a regulatory action; this is followed
by selection of an entity through a competitive process at a global level.
(
Section 19(2)
and
S. 20(5)
); both the identification of GA on the basis of
necessity or expediency, and the competitive selection process, make the
concepts of market forces and economic viability, central to the whole
process; the definition of "authorised area" in
Regulation 2(1)(c)
of the CGD
Authorization Regulations permits identification of geographical areas
comprising of parts or combinations of various administrative units therein;
the identification of geographical area is necessarily with reference to
administrative geographical units; there is no reference to identification on
the basis of geo-spatial coordinates (either in this or any other clause of the
2008 Regulations or in any Board decision); the two specified criteria, for

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 116 of 184

determination of a geographical area, are economic viability and contiguity
as mentioned in Schedule-A; the concept of contiguity is also defined in
Schedule-A as a function of economic viability. (There is no deletion of
'economic viability from
Regulation 2(1)(c)
); the Note to Schedule-A also
emphasizes on economic viability of the GA;
Regulation 2(1)(c)
of the 2008
Regulations makes such units as the constituent elements of a GA since the
economic data, which is necessary for identification of the GA, as also for
submission of bids, is available only in respect of the statutory geographical
units such as talukas, districts, notified urban areas etc; in particular, reliable,
comprehensive and statutorily authenticated economic data, in terms of the

Census Act, 1948
, is available only in the Census (this is the reason why,
despite being 7 years old, the last available census data of 2011 is referred
to in the regulations); the lowest unit, mentioned in
Regulation 2(1)(c)
, is also
the lowest unit considered in the Census i.e., a village. (not only is there no
basis for the submission of the 2nd Respondent that a part of some of the
villages of Kanchipuram District was made part of GA 9.62, but such a
submission is also contrary to
Regulation 2(1)(c)
); in any case, there is no
economic data available for any amorphous area identifiable only with
reference to the co-ordinates; the GA cannot be a non-specified unit; for
instance, a household/commercial user in a particular area should be able
to know to whom they should apply for supply of PNG, on the basis of the
administrative unit in which they are located, rather than undertaking a
coordinates based exercise; Schedule-B however indicates that the
geographical unit in question should ideally be a district or a combination of
districts, since the said Schedule requires availability of granular data of the
"economic activity in the proposed geographical area in terms of industrial
and commercial activity (number of units and fuel mix)" and "vehicular
population profile", which is available in the Census only at the district level
and not for its lower sub-division (while Schedule-B applies to the expression

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 117 of 184

of interest route cases, it is submitted that the same parameters must govern
the suo-motu determination of the GA by the Board); the statutory scheme
is that the GA must be identified with reference to geographical units
considered in the Census; the GA cannot be an amorphous unit, identifiable
with reference to co-ordinates, for which no economic data is available; the
bidder is required to make its offer in terms of Schedule-C; while the offer is
to be made consistent with the ACBD, the ACBD as such is not made part
of the offer under Schedule-C, or the authorization under Schedule-D;
Schedule-C contemplates that the bidder shall submit the relevant data,
including the charge areas of the GA and the extent of the geographical area
as his own data (Cl. 4(B)) i.e., it shall give its own understanding of the
geographical area, and give a declaration that the data given in the
'application-cum-bid' is correct, complete and truly stated; this makes the
bidder bound by the data submitted by it along with its bid; the Board
evaluates eligibility, inter alia, on the basis of the financial strength of the
bidder in terms of
Regulation 5(6)(e)
, which is a function of the figure of
population "in the geographical area" as per the Census, i.e., the population
of the geographical area should be available in Census 2011; upon selection
by the Board, the successful bidder is required to submit Performance Bond
in terms of
Regulation 9
, which is again a function of "Population in the
Geographical Area, as per the 2011 Census of India, once again
emphasizing that the GA must be a unit whose population is available in the
2011 Census of India; both these provisions necessarily require that the GA
must be a combination of one or more geographical units identified in the
Census, such as towns, villages, talukas and districts; while it has been held
in the impugned order that reference to Census 2011 is made in the bidding
document for the limited purpose of the bid bond and the application fee; this
firstly ignores that it is only the data 'of the GA' which can be considered -
the bid bond for one area cannot be based on the population of another area;

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 118 of 184

and secondly, that the bid bond and application fee are completely agnostic
of the total area, households and towns and villages situated in a GA, all of
which figures in the present case, also correspond to the Census 2011 data
of the respective districts.

161. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that, after submission
of the performance bond, the authorization in terms of Schedule-D is issued
with reference to the bid submitted, and lays emphasis on which State or
Union Territory the GA is located in, and the extent of the area in terms of sq
km for which the authorization is issued [para 1]; in view of the extant
statutory scheme, and the regulatory determinations made by the Board, the
only permissible manner for identification of GA's is on the basis of districts
and marking of charge areas on the basis of taluka/ tehsil/ mandal.

B. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT:

162. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, would submit that
Section 2(i)
of the PNGRB Act defines a city
or local natural gas distribution network;
Section 19
provides for the grant of
authorization;
Section 19(2)
states the Board may select an entity in an
objective and transparent manner as specified by regulations for such
activities;
Regulation 2(1)(c)
of the Authorization Regulations defines an
authorized area; it is thus evident that determination of the GA is completely
left to the discretion of the PNGRB; Schedule A of the Regulations lays down
the criteria for defining authorized area for laying, building or expanding a
CGD network;
Regulation 4
deals with initiation of proposal through
expression of interest route or suo-motu by the PNGRB;
Regulation 5
deals
with the criteria for selection of entity via an expression of interest;

Regulation 6
pertains to the suo-motu route; in the case of a suo-
motu route, the 'public consultation process', applicable to the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 119 of 184

expression of interest route under
Regulation 5
, has no
applicability because the Regulation itself states that aspects
relating to expression of interest in
Regulation 5
shall not apply in
the case of a suo-motu bid; PNGRB conducted its 9th CGD Bidding
Round in the year 2018; this was a suo motu (
Regulation 6
) round by PNGRB
covering 86 GAs across India; prior to the launch of the 9th Bidding Round
on 12.04.2018, PNGRB amended the 2008 Regulations on 06.04.2018;
Schedule A of the Regulations was also amended and the criteria/ basis to
define the authorized area for laying, building or expanding a CGD network
was modified;
Regulation 7
was also substituted and the bidding criteria was
changed; however, the definition of "authorized area" in
Regulation 2(1)(c)

remained unchanged.

163. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, under Schedule A
of the original/ unamended 2008 Regulations, the criteria for determining a
'specified geographical area' was economic viability and geographical
contiguity; however, by way of the amendment on 06.04.2018, this criteria
was changed to "natural gas availability, pipeline connectivity and
geographical contiguity"; therefore, "economic viability" was no longer a
relevant factor in determining the 'specified geographical area' for the 9th
Bidding Round; and the Bid Document also does not refer to "economic
viability";

C. ANALYSIS:

164. On the question as to whether exercise of regulatory power can be
elevated to the status of Statutory Regulations, and the need for regulatory
certainty, it must be borne in mind that not every principle essential to the
effective administration of a statute can or should be cast immediately into
the mold of a general rule. Some principles must await their own
development, while others must be adjusted to meet particular,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 120 of 184

unforeseeable situations. In performing its important functions in these
respects, therefore, an administrative agency must be equipped to act either
by general rule or by individual order. To insist upon one form of action to
the exclusion of the other is to exalt form over necessity. (
Securities &
Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corpn.
, 1947 SCC OnLine US SC
109 : 91 L Ed 1995 : 332 US 194 (1947);
Mahindra Electric Mobility
Limited v. Competition Commission of India
, 2019 SCC OnLine Del
8032; NHAI v. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch, (2021) 11 SCC 566).

165. Problems may arise in a case which the administrative agency could
not reasonably foresee, problems which must be solved despite the absence
of a relevant general rule. Or the agency may not have had sufficient
experience with a particular problem to warrant rigidifying its tentative
judgment into a hard-and-fast rule. Or the problem may be so specialized
and varying in nature as to be impossible of capture within the boundaries
of a general rule. In those situations, the agency must retain power to deal
with the problems on a case-to-case basis if the administrative process is to
be effective. There is thus a very definite place for the case-by-case
evolution of statutory standards. And the choice made between proceeding
by general rule or by individual, ad hoc litigation is one that lies primarily in
the informed discretion of the administrative agency. (
Securities &
Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corpn.
, 1947 SCC OnLine US SC
109 : 91 L Ed 1995 : 332 US 194 (1947);
Mahindra Electric Mobility
Limited v. Competition Commission of India
, 2019 SCC OnLine Del
8032; NHAI v. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch, (2021) 11 SCC 566).

166. Law comes into existence not only through legislation but also by
regulation and litigation. Laws from all three sources are binding. According
to Professor Wade, 'between legislative and administrative functions we
have regulatory functions'. A statutory instrument, such as a rule or

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 121 of 184

regulation, emanates from the exercise of delegated legislative power which
is a part of administrative process resembling enactment of law by the
legislature whereas a quasi-judicial order comes from adjudication which is
also a part of administrative process resembling a judicial decision by a court
of law. (PTC (India) Ltd. v. CERC, (2010) 4 SCC 603; NHAI v. Aam Aadmi
Lokmanch, (2021) 11 SCC 566).

167. It is important for the regulator to be consistent and predictable.
Further, regulations must be clear, as ambiguous regulations cause
confusion and uncertainty. Regularity and predictability, along with certainty,
are hallmarks of good regulation and governance. These principles underpin
the "rule of law", check arbitrariness and are read as the intent of the
legislation, which the Courts, if need be, will enforce as a principle of
interpretation. A regulator, when it executes statutory functions, interprets
the enactment and gives meaning and, in that sense, lays down what it
believes is the rule. As a legislator who constructs and states at the first
instance what is the rule, the Board tacitly promises and prophesies the
interpretation that appeals to them. Any good regulatory system must
promote and adhere to principles of certainty and consistency, providing
assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming
part of his daily affairs. (
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh
, (1989) 2 SCC

754). Unless men know what the rule of conduct is, they cannot regulate
their actions to confirm to it. Otherwise, the regulator "fails in its primary
function as a rule maker. [ Francis Bennion, Bennion on Statutory
Interpretation, 5th Edn. (Indian reprint), Section 266 at p. 801.] This does
not mean that the regulator/authorities cannot deviate from the past practice,
albeit any such deviation or change must be predicated on greater public
interest or harm. Therefore, to examine the question of inconsistency, the
analysis is to ascertain the need and functional value of the change, as
consistency is a matter of operational effectiveness. Sometimes changes

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 122 of 184

are desirable and necessary. (
SEBI v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan
, (2023) 2
SCC 643).

168. In "The Nature of the Judicial Process", Benjamin N. Cardozo
observed:

"I am not to mar the symmetry of the legal structure by the
introduction of inconsistencies and irrelevancies and artificial
exceptions unless for some sufficient reason, which will
commonly be some consideration of history or custom or policy
or justice. Lacking such a reason, I must be logical just as I must
be impartial, and upon like grounds. It will not do to decide the
same question one way between one set of litigants and the
opposite way between another."

(emphasis supplied)

169. While it may not be necessary for us to examine the nature of the
Regulatory power conferred by the
PNGRB Act
on the Respondent-Board,
in the present appeal, the judgements relied on behalf of the Appellant do
not support their submission that the regulatory exercise undertaken by the
PNGRB stands elevated to the level of statutory regulations. Besides
exercising its regulatory powers under different provisions of the
PNGRB
Act
, the Board has been conferred the power to make Regulations under

Section 61
of the said Act.
Section 61(1)
enables the Board, by notification,
to make Regulations consistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder
to carry out the provisions of the
PNGRB Act
. Clauses (a) to (za) of
Section
61(2)
provide for matters with respect to which the Regulations may provide.
Unlike, with respect to exercise of regulatory power, the Regulations made
under
Section 61
are required, in terms of
Section 2 (zb)
of the PNGRB Act,
to be notified in the official gazette. It is difficult for us, therefore, to agree
with the submission of Shri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 123 of 184

on behalf of the Appellant, that exercise of regulatory powers by the Board
should be elevated to the status of Statutory Regulations.

170. It is useful, in this context, to take note of the relevant statutory
provisions governing the obligations of the Board to prescribe the extent of
each Geographical Area for which an authorisation is to be granted by them.

Section 19
of the PNGRB Act relates to grant of authorisation and, under
sub-section (1) thereof, when, either on the basis of an application for
authorisation for laying, building, operating or expanding a city or local
natural gas distribution network is received, or on suo- motu basis the Board
forms an opinion that it is necessary or expedient to lay, build, operate or
expand a city or local natural gas distribution network in a specified
geographic area, the Board may give wide publicity of its intention to do so,
and may invite applications from interested parties to lay, build, operate or
expand a city or local natural gas distribution network.
Section 19(2)
enables
the Board to select an entity in an objective and transparent manner as
specified by Regulations for such activities.

171. It is clear from
Section 19(1)
of the PNGRB Act that the Board must
first form an opinion that it is necessary or expedient to lay, build, operate or
expand a city or local natural gas distribution network in a specified
geographic area. It is only after formation of such an opinion is the Board
then required to give wide publicity of its intention, and to invite applications
from interested parties. The Board is required thereafter, in terms of
Section
19(2)
, to select an entity in an objective and transparent manner, as specified
by Regulations, for such activities.

172.
Regulation 2(1)(c)
of the 2008 Regulations defines "authorized area"

to mean the specified geographical area for a city or local natural gas
distribution network (hereinafter referred to as "CGD network") authorized
under these regulations for laying, building, operating or expanding the CGD

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 124 of 184

network which may comprise of the following categories, either individually
or in any combination thereof, depending upon the criteria of economic
viability and contiguity as stated in Schedule A namely:- (i) geographic area,
in its entirety or in part thereof, within a municipal corporation or municipality,
any other urban area notified by the Central or the State Government,
village, block, tehsil, sub-division or district or any combination thereof; and

(ii) any other area contiguous to the geographical area mentioned in sub-

clause (i).

173.
Regulation 6
relates to invitation by the Board for laying, building,
operating or expanding of CGD network, and thereunder the Board may suo-
motu form a view regarding the development of a CGD network in a specific
city or a geographic area, and in such a case, the procedure as specified in

Regulation 5
(except aspects relating to the expression of interest) shall
apply.
Regulation 5(4)
enables the Board, based on the views received and
taking into consideration the criteria specified in Schedule A, to decide or fix
the authorized area for the proposed CGD network.

174. Schedule-A of the 2008 Regulations relates to the basis for defining
authorized area for laying, building, operating or expanding CGD network. It
is stipulated thereunder that the specified geographical area, in respect of
an authorized area for a CGD network as per
Regulation 2(1)(c)
of the
Authorisation Regulations, may be determined considering the following
criteria of natural gas availability, pipeline connectivity and Geographical
Contiguity, namely:- (1) Natural Gas availability and pipeline connectivity.
Thereunder geographical area shall either have availability of natural gas or
a natural gas pipeline passing within such area or passing in its vicinity or a
natural gas pipeline is proposed to be laid either within or in vicinity of such
area. (2) Geographical contiguity. Thereunder, for the purpose of any area
to be considered as contiguous to the geographical area as per Regulation

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 125 of 184

2(1)(c) of the Authorisation Regulations, such an area shall not have an
economic viability to have an independent CGD network on its own.

175. It is clear from the definition of an "authorised area" under
Regulation
2(1)(c)
, read with
Regulation 5(4)
of the 2008 Regulations, that, taking into
consideration the criteria specified in Schedule-A, the Board is required to
decide or fix the "authorised area" for the proposed CGD network. While an
"authorised area", ie a "specified geographical area", may fall in its entirety
or in part within a district or of a combination of one or more districts, it is
evident that the boundaries of a geographical area must be
specified/decided by the Board, since
Regulation 2(1)(c)
defines an
authorised area to mean the specified geographical area for a city or local
natural gas district network, and
Regulation 5(4)
requires the Board to fix the
authorised area for the proposed CGD network. The obligation to fix the
authorised area, ie a specified geographical area, must be fulfilled by the
Board prior to invitation of bids. since
Regulation 5(4)
requires the
"authorised area" to be fixed for the "proposed CGD network".

176. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines the word "specified" to
mean "to identify clearly and definitely". As the obligation placed on the
PNGRB, under
Section 19 (1)
, is to first form an opinion that it is necessary
or expedient to lay, build, operate or expand a city or local natural gas
distribution network in a specified geographic area, it must identify, clearly
and definitely, the Geographical area within which it considers it necessary
to lay a CGD network. As an "authorized area" is defined in
Regulation
2(1)(c)
of the 2008 Regulations to mean the specified geographical area
authorized for laying, building, operating or expanding the CGD network. It
is only for a definitely identified area, that an authorisation can be given in
favour of the selected entity. While requiring the PNGRB to clearly and
definitely identify the Geographical Area for which bids are to be invited, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 126 of 184

Regulations leave it to the discretion of the PNGRB to decide what should
constitute a geographical area, for
Regulation 2(1)(c)
makes it clear that a
Geographical Area may comprise either individually or in any combination
thereof, depending upon the criteria of economic viability and contiguity as
stated in Schedule A, a geographic area, in its entirety or in part thereof,
within a municipal corporation or municipality, any other urban area notified
by the Central or the State Government, village, block, tehsil, sub-division or
district or any combination thereof; and (ii) any other area contiguous to the
geographical area mentioned in sub-clause(i).

177. In this context, it is relevant to note that the 2nd Respondent informed
the Appellant, vide letter dated 22.02.2022, that their authorised GA
(Chennai and Thiruvallur District GAs) was also spread over to certain parts
of Kanchipuram District as per the map web hosted by the PNGRB during
the CGD bidding, considering which the bid members had quoted to make
the GA financially viable. Subsequently, in our order dated 05.04.2023, we
had recorded that earlier the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf
of the 2nd Respondent, was called upon to place before us a coalesced map
showing both the GAs (9.61 and 9.62) juxtaposed to each other, to enable
us to ascertain whether the Geographical Areas, as reflected in the
respective maps, overlap; learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant and the 2nd Respondent were in agreement that the GAs, as
indicated in the coalesced map furnished on behalf of the 2nd Respondent,
reflected the GAs indicated in the separate maps furnished along with the
bid documents, to the extent the boundaries of both the Geographical Areas
had been correctly shown therein. We had also recorded the submission of
Mr. Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, that, while the disputed 19 CNG stations fell within
Kanchipuram District, they fell with the GA for which an authorization was
given in favour of the 2nd Respondent; using a handheld GPS system, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 127 of 184

2nd Respondent had plotted these CNG stations on the basis of coordinates;
and they found that all these stations fell within GA 9.62 ie Chennai-Tiruvallur
Districts GA.

178. Since these 19 CNG stations indisputably fell within the boundaries of
the then Kanchipuram District, what we are required to ascertain is whether
the PNGRB had decided to fix GA 9.61 and GA 9.62 on the basis of a District
or beyond or less. If it is held that the Board had fixed the GAs on the basis
of a district, then, it is the Appellant which is entitled to operate these 19 CNG
stations falling within its authorised Geographical Area which is co-terminus
with the then Kanchipuram District. If, on the other hand, the Board intended
to fix the GAs on the basis of co-ordinates or to exclude a part of
Kanchipuram District from Kanchipuram District GA, and include it within
Chennai and Tiruvallur District GAs, then it is the 2nd Respondent which must
be held entitled to continue operating these 19 CNG Stations.

179. As identification by the Board of a "specified Geographical Area" for
which bids are to be invited is in discharge of its statutory obligations under

Section 19(1)
of the PNGRB Act read with
Regulation 2(1)(c)
,
5(4)
and
Schedule A of the 2008 Regulations, and the manner in which a
Geographical Area should be determined is left to the discretion of the Board
under the
PNGRB Act
and the 2008 Regulations, there is no obligation cast
on the Board only to rely on the 2011 Census data while determining the
Geographical Area. That does not, however, mean that the PNGRB is
prohibited from relying on the 2011 Census data in determining the limits of
each of the GAs for which bids are intended to be invited. The exercise now
undertaken by us is to ascertain whether the 2011 Census data was, in fact,
relied upon by the Board in determining the area and extent of GAs 9.61 and
9.62.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 128 of 184

180. We have no quarrel with the submissions of Mr. Gopal Jain, Learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, that
determination of the GA is at the discretion of the PNGRB. The question is
not regarding the power of the PNGRB to determine the boundaries of each
of the GAs for which bids are proposed to be invited, but as to how the
boundaries of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 have been actually determined. It does
appear that either the map vendor had erred in properly recording the co-
ordinates of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 or it has erred in correctly recording all other
details reflected in the map ie the District boundary, Talukas (Sub-Districts)
boundaries, reference to the name of the villages with a population of 5000
and above, the total area of the GA in sq. kms in terms of the 2011 census,
the total population of the GA in terms of 2011 census, the total number of
households in the GA as per the 2011 census, etc.

181. It is relevant to note that the left side of the map of each of these two
GAs records the GA boundary by way of a red line, the District boundary by
way of black lines, and both these lines overlap both with respect to GA 9.61
and 9.62. The black line between Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts in GA 9.62
reflects the boundaries of Chennai District within the said GA as it comprises
of two districts ie Chennai and Tiruvallur. The District boundary, recorded in
the black line which overlaps the GA 9.62 boundary line in red, evidently
refer to the District boundaries of both Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts put
together, and not separately.

182. It is no doubt true that mere issuance of the public notice, identifying
GA on the district concept, did not disable PNGRB from, thereafter,
amending the boundaries of the GAs to include within one GA the entire
district plus a part of another district. The question which necessitates
examination is whether the Board had, in fact, deviated from the district
concept indicated in the public notice, and had taken a conscious decision

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 129 of 184

to include a part of Kanchipuram District in the GA of Chennai and Tiruvallur
Districts.

XXI. REGULATORY DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD:

183. On the regulatory determination made by the Board, Sri Paras Kuhad,
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit
that it is the stated position of the PNGRB, before this Tribunal, that from the
4th round onwards it has been authorizing GAs based on the boundaries of
Districts, to rule out the issues/disputes arising amongst GAs having
contiguous areas. (as recorded in answer to Query no. 2 at p. 102 of the
judgment in Appeal No. 121 of 2020 titled
Megha Engineering and
Infrastructures Limited v. Bhagyanagar Gas Limited
); on 10.12.2020, the
Board filed an Affidavit before this Tribunal in the case of Megha
Engineering, reaffirming that "while preparing maps, the vendors are
supposed to take data related to boundaries from Survey of India or Census
of India 2011 District Handbook, based on which, the charge Areas are
demarcated", and that "the boundaries of the Geographical Areas are
checked with the district boundaries as mentioned in the Census of India
2011 District Census Handbook or with the maps given in the official website
of each district"; during the 5th CGD bidding round, the Board further took a
decision that charge areas are demarcated as per the mandal boundaries
within the districts, and made a public declaration of this decision in response
to clarifications dated 07.04.2015; these decisions constitute regulatory
determination made by the PNGRB; in regulatory jurisprudence, such
determinations have been placed on par with regulations made in exercise
of the power of delegated legislation; and it is not the case of the
Respondents that the Board revisited these regulatory determinations,
assuming it could have done so.

A. ANALYSIS:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 130 of 184

184. As held hereinabove, regulatory determination by the Board cannot be
placed on par with Statutory Regulations. In the light of the judgement of the
Supreme Court, in Adani Gas Limited, it may not be appropriate for us to
examine what the PNGRB had done with respect to other GAs, since the
authorisation granted with respect to those GAs is neither under challenge,
nor are those, in whose favour authorisation was granted, parties to the
present proceedings. We see no reason, in such circumstances, to examine
the clarifications given by the PNGRB with respect to the GAs of Megha
Engineering and Infrastructure Limited and Bhagyanagar Gas Limited, since
the authorisation granted to both the said entities are not the subject matter
of the present Appeal.

XXII. DETERMINATION OF GAS' 9.61 AND 9.62 BY PNGRB ON
THE BASIS OF DISTRICTS:

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

185. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that (1) the regulatory exercise for the 9th CGD
Bidding Round commenced in the year 2016; one of the objectives under
consideration was to identify GAs in a manner that avoided cherry-picking
(Note to Schedule-A); the Board again made a regulatory determination to
achieve this objective by identifying GAs on the basis of districts. (Public
Notices dated 10.03.2016 and 12.04.2016); on 18.01.2018, PNGRB issued
a tender for getting the maps of the identified GAs prepared through a
vendor; it was stipulated in the tender document that the vendor shall collect
details of all administrative divisions such as Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal etc. and
indicate them in the maps supplied, and that the source for population data
of the geographical area, was the Census of India; in the clarifications to the
said tender, it was stated that the Board would not provide geo-referenced
data to the vendor for preparation of the maps, and that the vendor was not

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 131 of 184

required to do any survey on his own; (2) shortly after 19.02.2018, a draft
Board Agenda was prepared for finalization of GAs for the 9th CGD Bidding
Round, which shows that the GAs were still based on the district concept;
the final Board Agenda and the Minutes of the Meeting thereon were not
made available to the Appellant for inspection; however, the final Board
Agenda was subsequently provided to the Appellant by its counsel who
obtained it from the PNGRB under the
Right to Information Act
on
19.09.2023); this records that, based on the entire consultation process, i.e.,
inputs from stakeholders and internal deliberations within PNGRB along with
members and authorization division, the Board had prepared a list of 86 GAs
comprising of 156 full districts and 18 Part Districts; in the list enclosed with
the Board Agenda, there are several part districts marked but Kanchipuram,
Chennai and Tiruvallur are shown as full and not part districts. [at Sr. 118,
119, 127]; and the relevant entries read as follows:

List of Geographical Areas for the 9th Round CGD Bidding

SN State/UT District Name Remarks

118 Tamil Nadu Kanchipuram

119 Tamil Nadu Chennai clubbed with Tiruvallur

127 Tamil Nadu Tiruvallur clubbed with Chennai

B. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE PNGRB:

186. In support of his contention that it was not necessary to make the
boundary of an administrative district as the boundary of a GA, Sri Rahul
Sagar Sahai, Learned Counsel for the PNGRB, would submit, on the issue
of the concept of a GA, that it was necessary, at the outset, to understand
the formation and concept of GA under the
PNGRB Act, 2006
and the
Regulations framed thereunder as the expression Geographical area (GA)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 132 of 184

had a particular meaning in downstream petroleum jurisprudence; the
expression 'specified geographic area' finds mention in
Section 19
of the
PNGRB Act, which governs the grant of authorization to entities; and
Section
19(2)
states that the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board
("PNGRB") may select an entity in an objective and transparent manner as
specified by regulations for such activities.

187. After extracting
Section 19
of the PNGRB Act, and
Regulation 2(1)(c)

of the 2008 Regulations, Learned Counsel for the PNGRB would submit
that, on analyzing the provisions of the
PNGRB Act
and the 2008
Regulations, it was clear that a geographical area may comprise of an area,
in entirety on in part thereof, within a municipal corporation or municipality,
any other urban area, village, block, tehsil, sub- division or district or any
combination thereof; determination of the GA is completely left to the
discretion of the regulatory authority i.e. PNGRB;
Regulation 2(1)(c)
of the
Authorization Regulation makes it clear that a specified geographical area
could be a combination of administrative demarcations in its entirety or in a
part thereof; it is possible that different areas of the same district may be a
part of two or more separate authorized GAs; similarly, a specified GA could
be a culmination of two areas falling in different districts; there is no
requirement, either in the Regulations or otherwise, that the entire
district/city should necessarily fall only in one specified GA; in fact, this
position is common ground between the parties since, even according to the
Appellant "it was never the contention of the Appellant that the Board is not
empowered to demarcate a Geographical Area comprising of parts of one
or more districts".

C. ANALYSIS:

188.
Regulation 5(7)
of the 2008 Regulations requires the application-cum-

bid to be submitted in two parts in the form as specified in Schedule C in

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 133 of 184

separate properly earmarked and sealed envelopes, namely: - (a) Part I
(Technical bid) covering general particulars of the entity and technical details
of the project including minimum eligibility criteria under sub-regulation (6);

(b) Part II (Financial bid) covering the financial details under
Regulation 7
.
Schedule C of the 2008 Regulations is the proforma of the application-cum-
bid for grant of authorisation for CGD network. Serial No. 4 of the said
Schedule relates to technical details of the proposed CGD network project.
Serial No. 4(B) requires the applicant to indicate in the maps the charge
areas and the extent of the geographical area along with the sketch of
facilities proposed. The application contains a declaration by the applicant
that the information furnished is true to the best of the applicant's knowledge
and belief and the information and data given in the annexure, attachments,
enclosures and calculation sheets accompanying the application-cum-bid
are correct, complete and truly stated, and if any statement made therein is
found to be incorrect, the application-cum-bid shall be rejected, the
application fee and the Bid Bond shall be forfeited and the applicant shall be
liable to be proceeded against, and for punishment under the provisions of
the Act.

189. The application-cum-bid document is issued by the Board inviting
entities to submit their bids for laying a CGD network in the specified
geographical Area (GA). The obligation placed on the Board, by
Section
19(1)
of the PNGRB Act read with
Section 2(1)(c)
,
5(4)
and Schedule A of
the 2008 Regulations, is to specify the geographical area for which bids are
to be invited. Part A of the ACBD draws reference of the bidders to the
applicable Regulations, including the 2008 Regulations and the
amendments thereto. Clause 1.1.1 of the ACBD states that the PNGRB was
inviting Applications-cum-Bids for grant of authorisation for developing City
Gas Distribution (CGD) network in the aforesaid geographical area as
depicted in the map at Annexure-1. Clause 1.1.2 states that the charge areas

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 134 of 184

are also depicted in the map; if the bidding entity is finally granted
authorization, the entity shall be required to reach the charge areas as
stipulated in the CGD authorisation Regulations. Clause 1.2 of the ACBD
requires the bidding entities to comply with the relevant regulations notified
from time to time, and requires them to carry out the development of CGD
project in line with the regulations
laid down by
the PNGRB. Clause 2.1.1
provides that the bidder is expected to examine the contents of the
Application-cum-Bid document, including all instructions, forms, terms and
conditions and all the Regulations of the PNGRB. Clause 2.1.2 stipulates
that the Application-cum-Bid document comprises of Annexure 1 to
Annexure 13. Annexure-1 is the map depicting the geographical area and
the charge areas, and the bidders were directed thereby to carefully study
the geographical area and the charge areas before submitting the bid.
Annexure 1 to the ABCD, which relates to the map depicting the
geographical area and the charge areas, also requires the bidder to carefully
study the geographical area and the charge areas before submitting their
Application-cum-Bid.

190.
In
Adani Gas Ltd. v. Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board
,
(2020) 4 SCC 529, the Supreme Court held that the bidder was required to
carefully study the GA and the charge area before submitting the bid; and
the bid document necessarily had to be in conformity with the 2008
Regulations. It is, therefore, difficult for us to accept the submission that it is
only the application cum bid document which has to be considered, by the
bidding entities. The conditions stipulated in the application-cum-bid
document must be read along with the applicable statutory provisions in the

PNGRB Act
and the 2008 Regulations. Since entities are required to submit
their bids separately for each of the GAs, it is evident that bids can be invited

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 135 of 184

by the PNGRB only after the contours and boundaries of each GA, for which
bids are invited, are clearly identified by them.

191. While it is true that
Regulation 2(1)(c)
confers power on the Board to
specify the geographical area, in its entirety or in a part thereof, it does not
discharge the Board of its obligations to specify the GA before inviting bids.
It is necessary for us, therefore, to ascertain what the Board has determined
to be the specified Geographical Area for GAs 9.61 and 9.62. The question
is not regarding the power of the Board to demarcate the GA comprising of
one or more districts, but regarding the actual exercise undertaken by the
Board, and the decision taken by it pursuant thereto regarding the contours
and boundaries of GAs 9.61 and 9.62.

192. It is true, as submitted on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, that the Board
had addressed letter dated 26.09.2018 to the Appellant regarding grant of
authorization for development of city gas distribution networks in the area of
Kanchipuram Districts. Para-1 also states that enclosed the said letter is the
authorisation in Schedule D for the GA of Kanchipuram Districts in duplicate.
While Kanchipuram District is referred to in the plural in the letter dated
26.09.2018, the map annexed thereto refers to the "Geographical Area,
Kanchipuram District". It is on the basis of this letter that it is contended that
the nomenclature of the GA is irrelevant, and the map given at the time of
bidding would prevail over any other consideration.

193. While demarcation of the boundaries, of each District in each State, no
doubt falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Government which
can undergo a change with time, and the boundary limits of both Chennai
and Kanchipuram Districts have undergone a change pursuant to GO dated
04.01.2018 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu before the PNGRB
issued the Application cum Bid Document on 12.04.2018, it is also not in
dispute that the Board has itself acknowledged, in the impugned order, that

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 136 of 184

it had not taken into consideration the changes made to the districts, vide
GO dated 04.01.2018, while inviting bids from eligible entities.

194. Division of the erstwhile Kanchipuram District between Kanchipuram
and Chengalpattu districts, post award of the GAs, would have no bearing
on determination of the subject GAs 9.61 and 9.62, and in issuing the
application-cum-bid document pursuant thereto.

195. As noted hereinabove, the manner in which the Geographical Area
should be demarcated, whether it should be on the basis of the district or
more or less, are all matters which fall exclusively within the discretion of the
Board. As the Board has itself acknowledged that it had not taken into
consideration the contents of GO dated 04.01.2018 in demarcating GAs 9.61
and 9.62, the changes made to the Kanchipuram and Chennai districts by
way of the said GO would not have any bearing on the determination of
boundaries of the subject Geographical Areas by the Board. What was taken
into consideration by the PNGRB, before issuing the Application cum Bid
Document on 12.04.2018, were the Kanchipuram, Chennai and Tiruvallur
Districts as they existed prior to GO dated 04.01.2018, and the information
furnished in the map annexed to the ACBD was based on the 2011 Census
which was the last Census undertaken in the country.

196. What we are concerned with, in the present Appeal, is the exercise
undertaken by the Board to determine the GA. The Appeals before this
Tribunal and later before the Supreme Court in Adani Gas was on the scope
and ambit of
Regulation 7
, which related to the bidding criteria. The issue in
the present case, on the other hand, is regarding determination by the
PNGRB, of the areas covered by GAs 9.61 and 9.62, in the discharge of its
statutory obligations under
Section 19
of the PNGRB Act read with

Regulation 2(1)(c)
,
5(4)
and Schedule A of the 2008 Regulations. The
context in which the Supreme Court, in Adani Gas, observed that the 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 137 of 184

Census could not be relied upon has already been dealt with earlier in this
order, and does not bear repetition.

197. We have no quarrel with the submission of the 2nd Respondent that the
map vendor was not called upon to rely on the Survey of India Map and,
consequently, it is un-necessary for us to delve into the question whether or
not the map prepared by the Map vendor, which forms the basis for invitation
of bids in the 9th round of bidding, was in accordance with the Survey of India
Map or the consequences of their failure, if any, to do so.

198. The right side of the map, in Annexure 1 of the ACBD and in the
authorization, for GA 9.61 ie Kanchipuram District GA contains details of the
charge area ID and the corresponding name of the charge area. CA-01 is
Alandur, CA-02 is Chengalpattu, CA-03 is Cheyyur, CA-04 is
Kancheepuram, CA-05 is Maduranthakam, CA-06 is Sholinganallur, CA-07
is Sriperumbudur, CA-08 is Tambaram, CA-09 is Tirukalukundram, CA-10 is
Tiruporur, and CA-11 is Uthiramerur. These 11 charge areas correspond to
the Talukas of Kanchipuram District as it stood on 03.01.2018 ie prior to GO
dated 04.01.2018 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The boundaries
of these charge areas are also demarcated within the GA boundary of the
physical map on the left side, and is recorded under the caption "Legend" on
the right side of the map as "Sub-District boundaries". That the map vendor
has taken information which existed within two years prior to the work order
is evident from the fact that Kanchipuram District under the 2011 Census
consisted of 10 Talukas, one of these ie Chengalpattu taluk was bifurcated
in the year 2012 to become Chengalpattu and Tiruporur Taluks. Except
bifurcation of Chengalpattu taluk into two in the year 2012, all other talukas
of Kanchipuram District remained as it was, post the 2011 Census, till GO
dated 04.01.2018 was issued. It is the admitted case of PNGRB that it did
not take into consideration the amended boundaries of Kanchipuram District

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 138 of 184

as notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 04.01.2018, and it had
invited bids on the basis of Districts as it existed prior to 04.01.2018.

199. It is relevant to note that the sum total of the population of each of
these charge areas, as recorded in the 2011 census, correspond to the total
population of Kanchipuram District as per the 2011 census which is also
recorded, as the population of the Kanchipuram District GA, ie 39,98,252,
on the right side of the map. Likewise, the sum total of the area in sq. kms.
of each of these charge areas (Talukas) in the 2011 census corresponds to
the area in sq. kms of Kanchipuram District ie 4483 sq. kms, which is also
the area in sq. kms of Kanchipuram District GA. The very fact that the
Appellant had, vide its letter dated 19.01.2022 sought amendment of its
authorization and for correction of the total area in sq. kms. recorded therein
as 6936,50 sq kms to 4483 sq. kms, and the Board had accordingly, vide its
letter dated 31.01.2022, carried out the amendment, would show that, even
as on 31.01.2022, the Board was of the view that the authorization given to
the Appellant for Kanchipuram District GA corresponded to the Kanchipuram
District boundary as it existed prior to GO dated 04.01.2018.

200. The villages with population of 5000 and above are also noted in the
GA map. Out of the 19 CNG sub-stations, 15 of them are located in 9 villages
with a population of 5000 and above, and are all reflected in the map of
Kanchipuram District GA ie GA 9.61, and are not referred to in the map of
Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts GA ie GA 9.62. If, as is now contended
before us on behalf of the second respondent, a part of Kanchipuram District
was consciously included in GA 9.62 ie Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts GA, then
the villages above 5000 population and the talukas in which these villages
where these 19 CNG Stations are located, ought to have been reflected in
the Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts GA map, and added to the total area in
sq.kms, the total population and the total households on the right side of the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 139 of 184

map of Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts GA. Likewise, the area in sq.kms,
population and households of that part of the Kanchipuram District which
was included within the Kanchipuram District GA ought to have been
excluded therefrom. Further the 9 villages, where the 15 CNG are located,
should have also been reflected in the map of Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts
GA.

201. It is relevant to note that the total area in sq. kms. ie 3659 sq. kms.,
the total population ie 83,74,836 and the total households ie 21,01,931
shown on the right side of the map at Annexure A of the bid documents for
GA 9.62 ie Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts GA tallies with the corresponding
figures reflected in the 2011 census for Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts
together; no part of any of the Talukas of Kanchipuram District, where these
19 CNG stations are located, are reflected in the map of Chennai-Tiruvallur
Districts GA; and the 9 villages with a population of 5000 and above, wherein
15 of the 19 CNG stations are located, are also not shown in the map of
Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts GA.

202. It does appear from the documents placed on record in these
proceedings, as also from the original records which the PNGRB had placed
for our perusal, that the Board has not taken a conscious decision to include
any part of the then Kanchipuram District or any part of the Talukas/ Villages
of the then Kanchipuram District in Chennai-Tiruvallur District GA.

203. While it is no doubt true that the Application-cum-Bid Document does
not per-se state that the GAs would be awarded on a District concept area
or on the basis of the Survey of India map, it does not also state that the GAs
would be awarded on the basis of co-ordinates. Further, both in terms of the
ACBD as also the annexed map, all the bidders were asked to take note of
the Geographical Area and the charge areas. From Annexure 1 to the
Application-cum-Bid Document ie the map of each of these GAs, the public

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 140 of 184

notices and other records of the PNGRB, we have sought to ascertain what
the Board intended to specify as the boundaries of each of these two GAs,
since
Section 19(1)
of the PNGRB Act read with
Regulation 2(1)(c)
,
5(4)
and
Schedule A of the 2008 Regulations, obligates the PNGRB to clearly identify
the GA before inviting bids for the said GAs. While the parameters to born in
mind by the Board to decide on the contours of the GA was changed by
amendment to Schedule A on 06.04.2018, and
Regulation 2(1)(c)
no doubt
gives a wide discretion to the Board to fix the boundaries of each of these

GAs, the PNGRB Act
and the 2008 Regulations also place an obligation on
the Board to clearly identify and decide what the boundaries of GAs 9.61
and GA 9.62 should be.

204. The emphasis, placed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, on the use of
words "Kanchipuram Districts" instead of 'Kanchipuram District' in the
authorization granted in favour of the Appellant is of no consequence. The
use of the word "Districts" denotes a district in the plurality and means two
Districts or more. It is not even contended, on behalf of the 2nd Respondent,
that there exists more than one Kanchipuram District in the State of Tamil
Nadu or that the Appellant's authorization included an area beyond
Kanchipuram District.

205. We have considered various factors, and not merely the nomenclature
given to the respective GAs. The division of Kanchipuram District, post
award of the GA to the Appellant, has no bearing on the present lis, since
what the Appellant is entitled to is only for the area as reflected in the map
of Kanchipuram District GA which is co-terminus with the then Kanchipuram
District. As discussed hereinabove, the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Adani Gas related to bidding criteria and on the scope of
Regulation 7
, and
not as to what constituted the GAs for which an authorization was granted in
favour of the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 141 of 184

206. The Appellant's contention, that reliance should be placed on the
Survey of India map, is misplaced since what is of relevance is the contours
of the map in Annexure 1 of the Application-cum-Bid Document which later
formed part of the authorization letter. The issue regarding non-furnishing of
.SHP file has already been discussed earlier in this order. The submissions
made by parties, before this Tribunal in Adani Gas, as well as before the
Supreme Court, related to whether or not the successful bidders had
complied with the bidding criteria in
Regulation 7
, and the submissions made
in that context cannot be extrapolated to the present dispute which relates
to determination of the boundaries of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 for which
authorization was granted in favour of the Appellant and the second
Respondent respectively. As already noted hereinabove, in the light of the
judgement of the Supreme Court in Adani Gas Ltd, it may not be
appropriate for us, in the instant case, to examine the decision taken by the
Board with respect to other GAs.

207. With a view to ascertain what the PNGRB had decided as the criteria
for determining the boundaries of both the GAs, we shall now take note of
the contents of the relevant Public Notices, the tender and work order issued
to the map vendor and the communication between them and the Board, as
also the official records of the PNGRB which we had directed them to place
for our perusal.

XXIII. PUBLIC NOTICE & OTHER DOCUMENTS:

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

208. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that it was also noted in the Board Agenda that the
list for the 9th CGD Round bidding had been prepared, inter alia, based upon
"Combination of districts for forming GAs based upon the input from

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 142 of 184

stakeholders and internal deliberations [pr. 5(vi)]; it was decided that the list
may be 'web-hosted once approved by the Board for information of all'; (3)
the list was evidently approved by the Board since a list identical to the list
annexed to the above Board Agenda, was in fact web hosted on 24.02.2018
"for information to all stakeholders concerned". [p. 108/C1]; it is thus
established that the Public Notice was giving wide publicity to the decision
of the Board formed after completion of the consultation process, in
consonance with
Section 19
; (4) the Board having decided, pursuant to the
above Agenda dated February, 2018, that Kanchipuram, Chennai and
Tiruvallur Districts will be comprised into GAs as indicated above, this
decision could only have been changed by the Board itself; no such
subsequent decision has been shown to this Court; (5) the same list was
reorganized and published by PNGRB vide public notice dated 01.03.2018;
this list also contained the names of Districts comprising the respective GAs
and the State in which they were located; in conformity with the Board
Agenda dated February, 2018, the list contains 86 GAs comprising of 156
full districts and 18 Part Districts; the 18 part districts are stated to be so at
Sr. No. 8, 9, 10, 15 (2 part-districts), 19, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57 (2 part-districts),
75, 76, 77, 82, 83 and 84; all the cases of part-districts are those where a
part of the area was previously authorized, except in the case of Chittorgarh
District, for which Rawatbhata Taluka was placed in GA 57, and the
remaining talukas were included in GA 59; there is no division below Taluka
level in any of the GAs; and GAs 9.61 and 9.62 were described therein as
follows:

List of Geographical Areas for the 9th Round CGD Bidding

SN State/UT Geographical District Name
Areas
61 Tamil Nadu Kanchipuram Kanchipuram
District

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 143 of 184

62 Tamil Nadu Chennai and Chennai
Tiruvallur Districts
Tiruvallur

209. With respect to the correspondence with the map vendor, Sri Paras
Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that, despite repeated
queries from the bench and assurances by the Respondents, it has not been
stated as to what part of Kanchipuram District/talukas/towns/villages were
included in GA 9.62, when, and pursuant to which decision of the Board; in
fact, as the correspondence with the map vendor shows, no such decision
was taken or communicated to the map vendor; (6) on 12.03.2018, the
Board awarded contracts for preparation of GA maps pursuant to clause
17.1.1 of the tender document dated 18.01.2018 to Samvridhi Infotech Pvt.
Ltd and ML Infomap Pvt. Ltd; the contract awarded to ML Infomap Pvt. Ltd
specifically reiterated the direction to depict Taluka/ tehsil/ Mandal as charge
areas, and to indicate the important towns/ cities; (7) on 23.03.2018, a work
order was issued to ML Infomap Pvt. Ltd to prepare maps for 59 GAs,
including "Kanchipuram District GA 9.61" and "Chennai and Tiruvallur
Districts GA 9.62"; this is the only document containing any information
about GAs 9.61 and 9.62 provided by PNGRB to ML Infomap; the list
attached to the work order contains the names of the State, Geographical
Area, District Name, Area, and Rate; under 'Area', the area of the GA in sq.
km, is mentioned, and it matches with the area of the Kanchipuram and
Chennai & Tiruvallur districts as per Census 2011; there is no reference to
any geographical coordinates (latitude or longitude) in this or any other
document provided by the PNGRB to the map vendor; the only information
provided in respect of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 is the name of the respective
districts and the total area, which matches the Census 2011 area in respect
of GAs 9.61 and 9.62; this is also the same as the area mentioned in the bid
document and the authorization letter of the respective GAs; the selected

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 144 of 184

vendor had provided a certificate to PNGRB on 23.02.2018 stating that it
has prepared the maps with administrative boundaries as per census and
updated up to the year 2017; it was thus clearly communicated by the
PNGRB to the map vendor that the GA map should be for the whole of
Kanchipuram and Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts respectively, that the talukas
of the districts should form the charge areas of the respective GAs, and that
the total area covered should be 4483 sq. km for GA 9.61 and 3569 sq. km.
for GA 9.62, respectively; assuming, without prejudice, that the map vendor
was asked to prepare a map with co-ordinates, he was at best asked to
provide the co-ordinates of the respective districts, which alone constituted
the Board's determination; it is not the case of the Board that they had
ascertained the co-ordinates and had asked the map vendor to draw a GA
boundary on the basis thereof; co-ordinates are not the decision of the
Board, but are, at best, one of the tools to depict the district based decision
of the Board; (8) the maps along with a summary sheet were received by
PNGRB on 09.04.2018, and approval thereon was granted by the members
of the Board [This document was not made available for inspection, but was
shown to the Court and the Counsel for the Appellant by the Board during
the course of the hearing]; (9) on 11.04.2018, a draft Public Notice was
prepared for inviting bids under the 9th CGD Bidding Round; the immediately
next document in the file is a summary sheet containing the list of GAs being
advertised with the figures of population and number of households; for
Kanchipuram District GA 9.61 and Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts GA 9.62;
these figures match those of Census 2011; this was one day prior to the
issuance of the bid document on 12.04.2018, and even till this stage, the
only reference point for GAs 9.61 and 9.62 is the respective districts of
Kanchipuram and Chennai & Tiruvallur, and their total area, population and
households, all three of which match the Census 2011 data; and (10) it is
thus established that there is no revisitation of the composition or boundaries

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 145 of 184

of the GAs after 01.03.2018; and contrary to the oral submission of the
counsel for PNGRB, there is no proposal, discussion or decision whatsoever
in any of the files to include any part of Kanchipuram District, or any village
(or part thereof) in GA 9.62, or to identify the GAs on the basis of co-
ordinates.

B. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PNGRB:

210. On the issue of public notices, Sri Rahul Sagar Sahai, Learned
Counsel for the PNGRB, would submit that reliance placed on the PNGRB
Public Notices dated 10.03.2016, 24.02.2018 and 01.03.2018 is misplaced;
the notices were not final or determinative, and the Board had sought
comments/ views from various stakeholders;
Regulation 2(1)(c)
of the
Authorization Regulations, even after amendment, remained unchanged
except Schedule A; further, the notices mention about a "concept"; the
concept of district, was there - district boundary is an important factor to be
considered; however, it was not necessary or mandatory to make the
boundary of an administrative district as the boundary of the GA; and the GA
boundary may vary from the administrative district boundary.

C. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT:

211. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
2nd Respondent, would submit that the appellant has placed reliance on the
Public Notices issued by the PNGRB, several years prior to the bidding for
the 9th Round, to argue that bidding was based upon 'district' concept to
avoid "cherry-picking" and ensure uniform development of CGD network;
Public Notices are not 'notification' as per the definition of 'notification'
provided in
Section 2(zb)
of the PNGRB Act, and do not have the force of
law; pursuant to the issuance of a Public Notice, PNGRB invites comments/
suggestions, if required, from the public at large and takes its final decision

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 146 of 184

only after considering the said comments/ suggestions; thus, as rightly held
by the PNGRB, Public Notices are not a 'final decision' of the PNGRB; even
otherwise, neither the tender document for the 9th Bidding Round nor the
Authorization Regulations refer to the aforesaid Public Notices; a bidder is
only expected to study the requirements of the Bid Document and, as held
by the Supreme Court in
Adani
(supra) case, introduction of any
consideration/ criteria/ requirement which was not notified to the bidders in
the Bid Document would have been illegal and arbitrary; the Public Notice
dated 10.03.2016, relied upon by the appellant itself, states that the same
was for general information, and any input on the said Public Notice may
be submitted to the PNGRB; similarly, the Public Notice dated 12.04.2016
also states that the PNGRB seeks comments/ views from the stakeholders
for consideration; it is, therefore, clear that the aforesaid Public Notices are
not final decisions and have no legal force; moreover, the fact that, pursuant
to the aforesaid Public Notices, PNGRB did not deem it fit to introduce
'district' concept by way of an amendment to the Authorisation Regulations
further shows that the Public Notices were not final decisions; the Public
Notice dated 12.04.2016 refers to the unamended Authorization
Regulations and envisages that the basis for determining a 'specified
geographical area' was economic viability and geographical contiguity;
however, on 06.04.2018 i.e. immediately prior to the launch of the 9th CGD
Bidding Round on 12.04.2018, the Authorization Regulations were
amended and 'economic viability' was removed as a criteria; thus, the
entire basis of the Public Notice dated 12.04.2016 was changed by this
amendment; the Public Notices dated 24.02.2018 and 01.03.2018 also do
not help the appellant; these notices nowhere specify that the boundaries
of any GA are to be as per the 2011 Census data or as per the Survey of
India map; and it is absurd to suggest that the data of Census of 2011 was

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 147 of 184

used as the basis by PNGRB for bidding and development of CGD
networks in the year 2018.

212. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the appellant has
also relied on the Public Notice dated 24.02.2018 to argue that PNGRB
had already finalized the list of GAs to be awarded as part of the 9th Bidding
Round; however, this is not correct; and a comparison of the indicative list
given by PNGRB with the Public Notice dated 24.02.2018 and the eventual
GAs put out for bidding would reveal the following:

Remarks on the indicative list
GA Name (9th Bidding Round)
given in Public Notice dated
(Pg. 195 onwards of C-1)
24.02.2018.

(Pg. 109 onwards of C-1)
Navsari District (EAAA), Surat District
The names of Surat and Tapi are
(EAAA), Tapi District (EAAA) & the
Dangs District (GA 9.10) not indicated in Public Notice.

Valsad (EAAA), Dhule & Nashik Valsad (part area) is not mentioned
Districts (GA 9.39) in the Public Notice.

Dakshina Kannada District (GA 9.28) It was proposed that the Dakshina
Kannada District will be split in two
parts. However, it was eventually
offered as one GA.

The actual GA offered for bidding
Medak, Siddipet & Sangareddy includes excluded portion of already
Districts (GA 9.71) authorized GA. However, the same
is not indicated in the Public Notice.
The Public Notice envisages East
Burdwan District (GA 9.86)
and West Burdwan.
However, eventually awarded only

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 148 of 184

as a single district.

Karaikal & Nagapattinam Districts Nagapattinam district is
(GA 9.50) geographically split by Karaikal (UT).
However, they are awarded
Cuddalore, Nagapattinam &
separately with different
Tiruvarur Districts (GA 9.64)
combination. This further
demonstrates that GAs have not
been awarded on
'district' concept.
The Public Notice only shows only
Moradabad (EAAA) District (GA 9.83)
part of Moradabad district, where as
+ the area granted under Regulation
the GA includes parts of Sambhal
18.
and Amroha
Districts.

213. The aforesaid instances show that PNGRB never intended that the
indicative list released as part of the Public Notice of 24.02.2018 would be
final or that it would restrict PNGRB from making any changes to the
authorized area before bidding.

D. ANALYSIS:

i. PUBLIC NOTICES ISSUED BY THE PNGRB:

214. A public notice was issued by the PNGRB on 10.03.2016, (in
continuation of its earlier public notice dated 08.09.2014), wherein it was
stated that a tentative list of all possible upcoming CGD Gas, for inclusion in
the future rounds of CGD bidding had been identified; as the concept of
Geographical Area (GA) for CGD bidding was now based upon the district
concept so as to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that development of CGD

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 149 of 184

network takes place uniformly in city areas as well as rural areas, the
identified list had been prepared. Annexure C-2, to the Public Notice dated
10.03.2016, is the list of probable GAs en-route upcoming/under-
implementation natural gas pipelines which can be considered for future
CGD bidding depending upon the status of construction of the pipelines, and
the details of the probable GAs are furnished in the form of a table. Column
1 of the said table is the Serial Number, Column 2 relates to the GA (District),
and Column 3 to the State. At Serial Number 110 of the Table is Thiruvallur
in the State of Tamil Nadu, Serial Number 111 is Chennai in the State of
Tamil Nadu, and Serial Number 126 is Kancheepuram in the State of Tamil
Nadu.

215. Thereafter, another public notice was issued by the PNGRB on
12.04.2016, in para 3 of which it was stated that the basis of identifying and
selecting any GA for inviting bids are as under: (i) GA shall be based upon
district concept so as to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that
development of CGD network takes place uniformly in city areas as well as
rural areas; (iii) There should be natural gas pipeline connectivity to the
respective GA so as to ensure gas supply for the proposed CGD network;
this may include pipeline connectivity directly through the district GA or in
close proximity of the district GA; and (vii) prevalent market conditions in a
specific area or sector requiring inclusion of GA for CGD development.

216. The subject of the public notice dated 24.02.2018 was the list of
Geographical Areas (GAs) for the 9th Round CGD (City Gas Distribution)
bidding. It was stated therein that, in furtherance to the earlier public notice
dated 10.03.2016, a list of Geographical Areas had been identified by
PNGRB for the 9th round of CGD bidding and was enclosed as Annexure-A;
the list included a total of 86 Geographical Areas consisting of 156 complete
districts and 18 part-districts; and bids shall be invited on these GAs by

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 150 of 184

March, 2018. Annexure-A thereto is the list of Geographical Areas for the
9th Round CGD bidding. The table, there-under, has four columns. The first
column is the Serial No., the second column is the State /UT, the third
column is the district name, and the fourth column is remarks. At Serial No.
118 is the State of Tamil Nadu, the corresponding District is shown as
Kanchipuram, and the remarks column is blank. At Serial No. 119 is the
State of Tamil Nadu, the corresponding District is shown as Chennai and, in
the remarks column, it is stated that it is clubbed with Thiruvallur. Likewise,
at Serial No. 127 is the State of Tamil Nadu, the corresponding District is
shown as Tiruvallur and, in remarks column, it is stated that it is clubbed with
Chennai.

217. The afore-mentioned table also shows that, in certain GAs, one district
has been clubbed with either another District or a part of another District.
For instance, at Serial No. 96 of the said table, is the State of Punjab, the
corresponding district is Patiala, and the remarks column states that it is
clubbed with Sangrur and part Mohali (SAS Nagar). It is in this context that
a distinction must be drawn between this GA at Serial No. 96 with the GAs
referred to at Serial Nos. 118, 119 and 127. While Chennai District is
clubbed with Tiruvallur District to form one GA, Kanchipuram GA is
exclusively with respect to Kanchipuram District, and is not clubbed with any
other District. The table does not show Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts GA
being clubbed with any part of Kanchipuram District either.

218. A public notice was issued thereafter on 01.03.2018, subsequent to
the PNGRB's public notice date 24.02.2018, and a GA-wise list was
enclosed thereto for reference. Annexure-A to the public notice dated
01.03.2018 is the list of Geographical Areas for the 9th Round CGD bidding.
The table there-under contains four columns: the first is the Serial Number,
the second is the State /UT, the third is the Geographical Areas, and the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 151 of 184

fourth is the District Name. At Serial Number 61 of the said table is the State
of Tamil Nadu, the corresponding Geographical Area is shown as
Kanchipuram District, and the District Name is shown as Kanchipuram. At
Serial Number 62, Column 2 refers to the State of Tamil Nadu, at column 3
the Geographical Area is shown as Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts, and at
column 4, the districts are shown as Chennai and Tiruvallur. No reference
is made therein to the Chennai and Thiruvallur Districts GA containing any
part of Kanchipuram District.

219. It is not just the earlier Public Notices dated 10.03.2016 and
12.04.2016 which state that the GA shall be based upon district concept,
even the table annexed to the Public Notices dated 24.02.2018 and
01.03.2018 clearly show that, while Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts GA
comprised of the two complete districts of Chennai and Tiruvallur, the
Kanchipuram District GA comprised only of the entire Kanchipuram District.

ii. TENDER & WORK ORDER ISSUED FOR
PREPARATION OF MAPS:

220. Tender dated 18.01.2018 was issued by the PNGRB inviting bids for
hiring of vendors for supplying customized and interactive maps. Section-I
thereof is the instructions to bidders. Section-II relates to the scope of the
work and the time schedules. Clause 17 there-under relates to the scope of
work. Clause 17.1 stipulates that it was proposed to award a rate contract
for a period of two years for providing the following integrated Networks and
Geographical Area Maps. Clause 17.1.1 refers to the repository of
geographical area maps of existing/proposed CGD networks across India;
and the repository of Geographical Area maps for approximately 100 Gas. It
is stated that the task includes preparation of individual GA maps depicting
Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal as charge areas and pointing important towns/cities,
District HQ and National/State Highways on the map; and output required in

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 152 of 184

WGS, JPG, PDF and Auto card formats along with 5 prints each of A1 size.
Clause 17.1.1.1 states that, based on these maps, PNGRB proposed to float
further bids for authorization for CGD networks in India; during this period,
maps shall be required for approximately 100 geographical area/districts;
however, the quantum of work required may vary to any extent and no claim
on this account shall be admissible. Clause 17.1.1.2 requires the bidder to
take into account all the points explicitly stated, as well as those that shall
be required to produce the output as required and stated. The detailed scope
of work is as under: (a) The geographical data used by the vendor to prepare
the maps should not be more than 2 year old; complete geo-referencing has
to be provided in the supplied maps with standard cartographic symbology
and colours; (b) the submissions shall have customized layouts printed on
A1 sheets (3 sets) at an appropriate scale (minimum 1:10,000) in colour; all
NH/SH and major roads and area segments, such as residential,
commercial, industrial, forest land /green area in urban /rural areas, are to
be indicated in the maps with their names; the vendor shall collect details of
all administrative divisions such as Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal etc, and indicate
them in the maps supplied; the accuracy level of the maps at this level shall
be within 20 m and certain additional landmarks/ details may be required to
be added besides removal of other details; (c) the population data of the
area is to be provided and shall be authenticated with the source details
(Census 2011 or later); (e) while taking outputs, a strip of maximum width of
15 cm should be left on the right side to be used for title, legends, scale,
tables and other details as desired by PNGRB; the rest of the sheet shall
indicate the actual map leaving a strip of only 1" from all edges; (f)
submissions shall also be in the form of geo-referenced .shp files projected
in WGS formats besides JPG and PDF formats along with 5 prints each of
A1 size; (g) the vendor shall guarantee the accuracy of the details provided
in each map to a level as specified; in case inaccuracies are reported by

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 153 of 184

PNGRB within six months of receiving final deliverables for a city/
geographical area, the vendor will rectify the same and provide fresh prints
and submissions at no extra cost within a period of 10 working days.

221. Clause 17.1.1.3 stipulates that the vendor shall provide necessary
authorization to PNGRB to use the map for its bidding as well as monitoring
purposes; this will include adding more information to the maps later on, and
sharing the maps with other agencies for project implementation and
monitoring purposes; no term of such authorization can be in conflict with
the terms and conditions of the tender; and the vendor shall also indemnify
PNGRB from any legal implications arising from use of such maps for the
afore-said purposes.

222. Thereafter, the scope of work for online GIS integration of oil and gas
pipeline data is specified to include, (1) overlaying of GA maps prepared
under clause 17.1.1 on interactive maps of India; (2) overlaying of pipeline
network prepared under clauses 17.1.2 and 17.1.3 on the interactive maps
of India; (3) integration of attribute information on pipelines, locations and
others provided by PNGRB; (4) development of web based GIS interface for
visualization of oil and gas pipelines; (5) develop an interface on GIS
framework for users to filter information on pipelines, locations, GA maps,
NGP, PPP, CGD with various options; and (6) integrate the GIS interface
with the PNGRB web site under desired section as hypertext link with
secured authentication.

223. It is clear from the aforesaid tender dated 18.01.2018, that the
Board intended the task, entrusted to the map vendors, to include
preparation of individual GA maps depicting Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal as charge
areas, and pointing important towns/cities, District HQ and National/State
Highways on the map.; and the map vendor was required to collect details
of all administrative divisions such as Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal etc, and indicate

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 154 of 184

them in the maps supplied; the population data of the area was to be
provided and was required be authenticated with the source details (Census
2011 or later);

224. Tender dated 18.01.2018 makes it clear that the Board intended for
Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal to be depicted as charge areas; and the population
data of the area was to be provided and authenticated with the source details
ie Census 2011 or later. As the last official Census was only the 2011
Census, the population and area details have evidently been taken by Map
Vendor therefrom. As Talukas were to be depicted as charge areas, and as
it is evident that the sum total of the 11 charge areas constituted the
Kanchipuram District GA and the sum total of these 11 talukas constituted
the then Kanchipuram District, it is clear that the Kanchipuram District GA is
co-terminus with the then Kanchipuram District.

225. A work order was issued by the PNGRB to M/s. ML Infomap Private
Limited on 23.03.2018 requesting them to develop 59 Geographical Area
maps enclosed as Annexure-A. Annexure-A to the said letter is a table
containing 8 columns. Column No. 1 is the Serial Number, Column No. 2 is
the State/Union Terrirory, Column No. 3 is the GA, Column No. 4 is the name
of the district, and Column No. 5 is the area in square kilometres. Details of
the other columns need not be referred to as they are not relevant for the
purposes of this Appeal. At Serial Number 61 of the said table is the State
of Tamil Nadu, the corresponding GA is shown as Kanchipuram District GA,
the corresponding district name is shown as Kanchipuram district, and the
area in square kilometres is shown as 4483 square kilometres. At Serial
Number 62 of the said table is the State of Tamil Nadu, the corresponding
GA is shown as Chennai and Thiruvallur district GA, the corresponding name
of the district is shown as Chennai and Thiruvallur, and the area in square
kilometres is shown as 3569 sq.kms.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 155 of 184

226. It is clear from this work order that the PNGRB intended to have maps
prepared on the basis of the Districts, for not only does the table contain the
names of the Districts which are shown as Kanchipuram, Chennai &
Tiruvallur, the corresponding area in square kilometres also tallies with the
total area in square kilometres of the then Districts of Kanchipuram, Chennai
and Tiruvallur. The 2011 Census records the area of Chennai District as 175
square kilometres, and the area of Tiruvallur District as 3394 square
kilometres i.e a total of 3569 square kilometres, which tallies with the area in
square kilometres as shown in the afore-said table, as also in the map of
GA.9.62. Likewise, the area in square kilometres of Kanchipuram district, in
the table annexed to the work order dated 23.03.2018, is shown as 4732
square kilometres, which is the area mentioned not only in the authorisation
map, but also the area of the then Kanchipuram district as per Census 2011.

iii. DOCUMENTS FROM THE ORIGINAL RECORDS OF
THE PNGRB:

227. The original records of the PNGRB, in relation to the subject dispute,
were placed for our perusal. The record contains, among others, Board
Agenda No. Infra/CGD/Bid-9th Round/01/2018 of February, 2018 which
relates to finalisation of GAs for the 9th CGD bidding round. Para 4 of the
said Agenda Note records that, based on the inputs received from various
stakeholders and internal deliberations, a list of 86 Gas, which comprised of
156 full districts and 18 part districts from 22 States and UTs, had been
prepared and the list was enclosed as Annexure 1. Para 6 of the said agenda
note records that the amendments, in CGD Authorisation Regulations, was
at an advanced stage of finalisation; an amendment to the CGD
Authorisation Regulations was targeted to be finalised by 28.02.2018 for
legal vetting; in addition, the tender for hiring an agency for customized maps
was under technical evaluation, and was expected to be awarded soon.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 156 of 184

228. Annexure 1 to the afore-said Agenda Note contains the list of GAs for
the 9th Round CGD bidding, and the table thereunder contains four columns.
The first is the Serial No; the second is the State/Union Territory; the third is
the name of the district, and the fourth is the remarks column. At Serial. No.
118 of the Table is the State of Tamil Nadu, the district is shown as
Kanchipuram, and the remarks column is blank. At Serial No. 119 of the table
is the State of Tamil Nadu, the district is shown as Chennai, and in the
remarks column it is stated that it is clubbed with Tiruvallur. At Serial No. 127
is the State of Tamil Nadu, the district is shown as Tiruvallur and, in the
remarks column, it is stated that it is clubbed with Chennai. This Agenda
Note also makes it clear that Kanchipuram GA was to be the Kanchipuram
District, and Chennai & Tiruvallur GA was to comprise of two whole districts
of Chennai and Tiruvallur.

229. The PNGRB informed ML Infomap Pvt. Limited, vide letter dated
12.03.2018, that they were pleased to award them the contract for item No.
1 as per the following schedule of rates for each part and subject to all the
terms and conditions contained in the tender documents. Serial No. 1
contains the item details and the rates quoted. It refers to the repository of
geographical area maps for approximately 100 Gas. The task includes
preparation of individual GA maps depicting Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal as charge
areas, and pointing important town/cities, District HQ and National/State
Highways on the map as per clause 17.1.1 and the output was required in
WGS, JPS and PDF formats along with 5 prints each of AI size.

230. The PNGRB informed ML Informap Pvt. Ltd, vide letter dated
23.03.2018, that they should develop 59 GA maps, and the maps enclosed
as Annexure A immediately. Annexure A has 8 columns. The first is the Serial
No; the second is the State/Union Territory; the third is the GA; the fourth is
the district name; the fifth is the area in sq. kms; the sixth is the rate; the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 157 of 184

seventh is the company to which contract was awarded, and the eighth
relates to the cost. At Serial No.61, of the table in Annexure-A, is the State
of Tamil Nadu, the corresponding GA area is referred to as Kanchipuram
district, the corresponding district name is shown as Kanchipuram, and the
corresponding area is shown 4483 sq. kms. At Serial No. 62 in the State of
Tamil Nadu, the corresponding GA area is referred to as Chennai and
Tiruvallur districts, the corresponding district names are shown as Chennai-
Tiruvallur, and the corresponding area is shown as 3569 square kms.

231. From the aforesaid details also, it is clear that the Board intended for
maps to be prepared for GAs 9.61 and 9.62 on the basis of the respective
districts in its entirety and not a part thereof, for if the Board had intended to
include a part of Kanchipuram District in Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts GA,
and exclude such part from the Kanchipuram District GA, it would have made
it clear in the said letter.

232. A summary sheet, of the GAs offered in the 9th CGD Round, are
detailed in pages 399-402 of File No. AUTC/CGD/GA/List/GA/GAIL/17-18.
The said summary sheet is in the form of a table containing 11 columns. The
first column relates to the GA. ID; the second column relates to the State/UT;
the third column relates to the GA, the fourth column relates to the name of
District; the fifth column contains details of the households; the sixth column
contains details of the population; the seventh column contains details of the
area in square kms; the eighth column relates to the bid bond (in Rs.), the
ninth column relates to the minimum net worth (in Rs. Crores), the tenth
column relates to the Performance Bank Guarantee (Rs. in Crores), and the
eleventh column relates to the Application fee.

233. At Srl. No. 61, of the table in the summary sheet, is the State of Tamil
Nadu, the corresponding name of the GA is shown as Kanchipuram district,
the corresponding name of the district is shown as Kanchipuram, the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 158 of 184

corresponding number of households is shown as 10,06,245, the
corresponding population is shown as 39,98,252, the corresponding area in
square kms is shown as 4482.00 sq. kms, and the corresponding bid bond
is shown as Rs. 3,00,00,000. At Serial. No. 62, of the table in the summary
sheet, is the State of Tamil Nadu, the corresponding GA is shown as
Chennai-Tiruvallur, the corresponding name of the district is shown as
Chennai-Tiruvallur, the corresponding number of households are shown as
21,01,931, the corresponding population is shown as 83,74,836, the
corresponding area in square kms. is shown as 3569 square kms, and the
bid bond is shown as Rs. 8,37,48,360. From the name, number of
households, population and area in sq kms of the respective GAs, as
reflected in the afore-said table, it is evident that the Board intended to
determine the boundaries of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 on the basis of the
corresponding Kanchipuram District and Chennai & Tiruvallur Districts.

234. The Board Note dated 09.04.2018, signed by the Secretary of the
Board and Member (I&T), records that, subsequent to the Board approval
dated 05.04.2018, a reference copy of the ACBD was web-hosted on the
PNGRB site; the Board has already approved 86 GAs for the 9th round CGD
bidding; and, once the amended CGD authorization Regulations are notified,
the bid for the same shall be invited through e-portal. The said note also
records that customised maps for the 86 GAs were received from M/s ML
Infomap and M/s Samvridhi along with the summary sheet showing GA-wise
area, population, bid bond, PBG and application fee, which was being placed
for approval. In the table given there-under reference is made to Shimla,
Solan and Sirmaur GA in the District of Shimla which was proposed to be
merged with certain charge areas. The said table also refers to Bilaspur,
Hamirpur and Una GA in Bilaspur District which was also proposed to be
merged with certain other charge areas. The Board Note thereafter records

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 159 of 184

that, after approval, M/s ML Infomap would be communicated to modify the
Geographical Area map for the aforesaid GAs.

235. It does appear from the said Board Note dated 09.04.2018, signed by
the Secretary of the Board and Member (I&T), that the Board did not modify
the Geographical Area maps of GAs 9.61 and 9.62. From the public notices,
the tender and work order issued to the map vendor, the correspondence
between the Board and the Map Vendor, and the Board Notes, it is evident
that, what the Board intended to fix as the boundaries of GA 9.61 are the
boundaries of the then Kanchipuram District. What none of the parties to
these appellate proceedings have acknowledged, evidently in their own
interest, is that, while the Board had all through intended for GA 9.61 to be
co-terminus with the then Kanchipuram District, the map vender had erred
in fixing the co-ordinates of this GA and GA 9.62 ie Chennai-Tiruvallur
Districts GA, which has resulted in these 19 CNG stations being erroneously
shown as falling within the co-ordinates of GA 9.62, though they are in fact
located within the boundaries of the then Kanchipuram District as it existed
just prior to GO dated 04.01.2018, which is co-terminus with Kanchipuram
District GA.

236. Pursuant to the Board Note dated 09.04.2018, signed by the Secretary
of the Board and Member (I&T), a draft public notice dated 11.04.2018 was
prepared for inviting electronic bids from interested parties for development
and CGD networks in 86 (wrongly stated in the note as 80) Geographical
Areas. The draft public notice states that details of the Geographical Areas
and bids were available at the PNGRB website. Attached thereto is a
summary sheet ie a table containing 11 columns. The first column is the GA
ID, the second column is the State/ Union Territory, the third column is the
Geographical Area, the fourth column is the District's name, the fifth column
relates to households, the sixth column relates to population, the seventh

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 160 of 184

column relates to the area in sq. km., the eighth column relates to the Bid
Bond in Rupees, the ninth column relates to the minimum networth in
Rupees/ crores, the tenth column relates to the performance bank guarantee
(in Rupees/crores), and the eleventh column relates to the application fee.
At Serial No. 61 of the said table is the State of Tamil Nadu. The
corresponding GA is shown as Kanchipuram District, the name of the
corresponding District is shown as Kanchipuram, the corresponding number
of households is shown as 10,06,245, the corresponding population is
shown as 39,98,252, the corresponding area in sq. km. is shown as 4483
sq.km., the corresponding Bid Bond is shown as 3 crores, the corresponding
minimum networth is shown as 100 crores, the corresponding performance
bank guarantee is shown as 33 crores, and the corresponding application
fee is shown as 12 lakhs. At Serial No. 62 of the said table is the State of
Tamil Nadu, the corresponding GA is shown as Chennai and Tiruvallur
District, the corresponding name of the District is shown as Chennai and
Tiruvallur, the corresponding number of households is shown as 21,01,931,
the corresponding population is shown as 83,74,836, the corresponding
area in sq.km. is shown as 3569, the corresponding Bid Bond is shown as
8,37,48,360, the corresponding minimum networth is shown as 249 crores,
the corresponding performance bank guarantee is shown as 50 crores, and
the corresponding application fee is shown as 12 lakhs.

237. The Appellant's claim that these figures match the details furnished on
the right side of the map in both GAs 9.61 and 9.62 (Annexure 1 to the
ACBD) seems justified. Just a day thereafter, a public notice was issued on
12.04.2018 inviting electronic bids from interested parties for development
of CGD networks in 86 Geographical Areas which included Gas 9.61 and
9.62.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 161 of 184

238. It is evident from the Board Note dated 09.04.2018 (signed by both the
Secretary and Member (I&T) of the Board and prepared just three days
before the application-cum-bid documents were web-hosted on 12.04.2018),
that the Board did not modify the Geographical Area maps prepared by the
map vendor with respect to GAs 9.61 and 9.62. Just as the Appellant had
submitted its application in Schedule C on the basis of the map given by the
PNGRB, so had the 2nd Respondent submitted its application in Schedule C
on the basis of the map given by the PNGRB for GA 9.62, without raising
any objection to the information provided on the right side of the map,
besides the particulars mentioned on the physical map itself (details of which
have been referred to earlier in this Order).

239. The doctrine of estoppel, would not bar this Tribunal from inquiring into
the actual identification exercise undertaken by the PNGRB to determine the
boundaries of the GAs, more so in the light of the evident error which
appears to have been committed by the map vendor, in fixing the co-
ordinates of each of these two GAs. Thereafter, a public notice was prepared
on 11.04.2018 and was placed on the website of the PNGRB on 12.04.2018.
It is stated, in the said public notice, that details of GAs and bids are available
at the PNGRB's website.

240. As noted hereinabove the public notices issued by the PNGRB prior to
the issuance of Application-cum-Bid Document, the tender issued inviting
bids for preparation of maps, the work order issued to the map vendor and
the Board note dated 09.04.2018 signed by the Secretary and Member (I&T)
of the Board, support the contention of the Appellant that the Board intended
to invite applications for GA 9.61 and GA 9.62, both of which were specified
on the basis of the respective Districts to which they corresponded. While
the Board was, undoubtedly, entitled, even after issuance of the said public
notices, to have consciously decided, for reasons to be recorded in writing,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 162 of 184

to determine the boundaries of the GAs on any basis other than that of a
District, neither the material placed on record in these appellate proceedings
nor the original records placed for our perusal by the Board, show that the
Board having intended to deviate, or to have actually deviated, from its
earlier decision that bids for GA 9.61 and GA 9.62 should be invited on the
basis of the respective Districts. As there is no material on record to show
that the Board had consciously decided to include a part of the then
Kanchipuram District in GA. 9.62, it does appear that the apparent error of
the map vendor, in fixing the co-ordinates so as to correspond with the
respective districts to which GAs 9.61 and 9.62 related to, went un-noticed
by the Board as also the parties to these proceedings before an authorization
was granted for GA 9.61 in favour of the Appellant, and for GA 9.62 in favour
of the second Respondent.

241. The material on record does not also show that the Board ever having
intended to determine the boundaries of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 merely on the
basis of co-ordinates, nor does it show the Board to have held the other
information, furnished in the maps annexed to the authorization granted to
GAs 9.61 and 9.62, to be erroneous. We find force in the submission, urged
on behalf of the Appellant, that what the Board intended in stipulating the
boundaries of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 were the boundaries of the then existing
Districts of Kanchipuram, Chennai and Tiruvallur.

242. The public notices issued by the Board, from time to time, are not
notifications under
Section 2(zb)
of the PNGRB Act, but notices issued by
the Board in the discharge of its statutory obligation, under
Section 19(1)

of the PNGRB Act, to give wide publicity of its intention to invite applications
for laying, building, operating or expanding a city or local natural gas
distribution network in a specified Geographical Area.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 163 of 184

243. While it is true that the bidders would go by the Application-cum-Bid
Document in submitting their bids, the ACBD itself requires the bidders to
make themselves aware of the 2008 Regulations as well as the contents of
the map in Annexure 1 of the bid documents.
The PNGRB Act
and the 2008
Regulations have left it to the discretion of the Board to determine the
manner in which the contours or the boundaries of the GA should be
determined. While the amended Schedule A requires the Board to bear in
mind the factors stipulated therein while determining the GA, it does not
expressly stipulate as to how the GA boundaries should be actually
determined. Since
Section 19
of the PNGRB Act and the 2008 Regulations
require the PNGRB to specify the geographical area, and only thereafter to
invite bids for each of the specified GAs, what the Board ought to have been
done was to clearly identify the GAs for which the bids were proposed to be
invited before web-hosting the ACBD on 12.04.2018. Failure of the Board to
exercise greater caution in specifying the GA has resulted in this avoidable
litigation. In the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court, in Adani Gas
Limited, it may not be appropriate for us to examine the contentions, urged
on behalf of the second Respondent, with respect to GAs which are neither
the subject matter of the present appeal nor are the successful bidders of
such GAs parties to the present proceedings.

244. We find force in the submission of Mr. Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, that the Board has not been
able to show which part of the Kanchipuram District and the Talukas/Villages
therein were included in GA 9.62, if so when, and pursuant to which decision
taken by the Board. The material on record does not also disclose any such
conscious decision having been taken by the Board, much less any such
decision having been communicated to the map vendors pursuant to the
award of contract in their favour. The records summoned from the Board
disclose that the contract awarded to M L Infomap Pvt Ltd, with respect to

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 164 of 184

GAs 9.61 and 9.62, required them to depict Talukas/Tehsils/Mandals as
charge area, and to indicate the towns and cities. As the talukas or tehsils or
mandals are all sub-divisions of a district, and it is the sum total of all the
talukas in a district which constitute the said district, it is evident that the map
vendor was called upon to prepare maps for GAs 9.61 and 9.62 on the basis
of the districts of Kanchipuram and Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts. The
table attached to the work order given to the map vendor makes it
abundantly clear that the Board intended to have maps prepared for GAs
9.61 and 9.62 on the basis of the respective districts of Kanchipuram,
Chennai & Tiruvallur, neither more nor less.

245. The exercise undertaken by us was to ascertain what the Board
intended to and had actually constituted as the boundaries of GAs 9.61 and
9.62, whether the Board intended that GA 9.61 should be confined to
Kanchipuram District and GA 9.62 to Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts or whether
the Board intended to include a part of Kanchipuram District in Chennai-
Tiruvallur Districts GA. It is pursuant to this exercise undertaken by us that
various factors have been taken into consideration, one among which is
approval of the maps submitted by the map vendors. As the Board could well
have decided to deviate from the map submitted by the map vendor (which
apart from the co-ordinates, contains several other details all of which
indicate that GAs 9.61 and 9.62 were co-terminus with Kanchipuram District
and Chennai-Tiruvallur District), we also sought to satisfy ourselves as to
whether the Board, after receipt of the maps from the map vendor and
before issuing the Application-cum-Bid Document on 12.04.2018, had taken
a conscious decision to deviate from the map submitted by the map vendor.
It is in such circumstances that we had to examine, in detail, various aspects
including the process undertaken by the Board in approving the maps
submitted by the map vendor.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 165 of 184

246. It does not stand to reason that the Board, against whose order an
appeal lies to this Tribunal, should be heard to contend that the process of
approving the maps, submitted by the map vendor, is beyond the jurisdiction
of this Tribunal. In this context, it is necessary to note that
Section 33(1)
of
the PNGRB Act enables a person, aggrieved by an order or decision made
by the Board under the
PNGRB Act
, to prefer an appeal before this Tribunal
and
Section 33(3)
confers powers on this Tribunal, on receipt of such an
appeal under
Section 33(1)
and after giving the parties an opportunity of
being heard, to pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. An appeal before
this Tribunal, under
Section 33(1)
of the PNGRB Act, is an appeal both on
facts and law, and is, in effect, a continuation of the original proceeding
before the Board. The jurisdiction conferred on this Tribunal under
Section
33(3)
, to adjudicate the appeal, is extremely wide and, in the exercise of this
jurisdiction, it is always open to this Tribunal not only to consider the material
on record which form part of the appellate proceedings, but also to summon
and examine the relevant records of the PNGRB. While it is true that both
the Appellant and the second Respondent have made it clear that they are
not seeking to have the entire bidding process set aside, and their dispute is
confined only to the 19 CNG sub-stations, this lengthy and elaborate
exercise undertaken by us is only to ascertain whether these 19 CNG
stations, which all admittedly fell within the then Kanchipuram District, was
intended by the Board to be made part of the Kanchipuram GA ie GA 9.61
or as part of Chennai-Tiruvallur Districts GA ie GA 9.62.

XXIV. DETERMINATION OF THE SUBJECT GAs ON THE BASIS
OF DISTRICTS:

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 166 of 184

247. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that the appellant's case was that (i) the statutory
scheme, when read with the regulatory determination made by the Board,
required that the GA is based on the district concept and the sub-districts
(Taluka/ Tehsil/ Mandal) should form its Charge Areas; in the present case,
the public consultation, the determination of the GAs and the evaluation of
bids, were all on the basis of GA 9.61 comprising of the entire district of
Kanchipuram, and GA. 9.62 comprising entirely of the districts of Chennai
and Tiruvallur; no decision was ever taken by the Board to include any part
of Kanchipuram District, let alone any part of the talukas or villages of
Kanchipuram District in GA 9.62 and vice-versa; this constitutes the
background context of the contract between the parties. (2) the text of the
contract between the parties, i.e. the authorisation, also clearly show that
these are authorisation for the respective districts. The authorisation for GA
9.61 issued to the Appellant includes the concerned talukas and the towns/
villages in which the concerned CNG stations are located, while the
authorization for GA 9.62 given to the 2nd Respondent does not. (3) the
action of the Board, and the subsequent conduct and dealings of the parties
at every stage, also show that they understood and represented that the GAs
were co-terminus with the respective districts; and (4) the "coordinates test"

is not applicable in the facts of the present case.

B. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT:

248. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, would submit that the appellant's contention that the
authorization of a GA has been granted by PNGRB on 'district' concept, and
that too linked to Census 2011, is wrong and misleading; a bidder is only
concerned with what was included in the Bid Document, and introduction of
any consideration/ criteria/ requirement which was not notified to the bidders

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 167 of 184

in the Bid Document is not permissible; there was no mention whatsoever in
the Bid Document that the GAs will be awarded on 'district' concept or on the
basis of the Survey of India map; the GA boundary is the area / region
depicted by the map with geo-coordinates as provided by the PNGRB, and
for which the bid had been invited by the PNGRB for the development of the
CGD network; on the other hand, the concept of a district boundary is only
for administration purposes, and the district boundary does not have any
sanctity under the
PNGRB Act
and the Authorization Regulations;
Regulation
2(1)(c)
of the Authorization Regulations makes it clear that the specified
geographical area could be a combination of administrative demarcations in
entirety or in part thereof; therefore, a specified GA could be a culmination of
two areas falling in different districts; in fact, this position is undisputed since,
even according to the appellant, "it was never the contention of the Appellant
that the Board is not empowered to demarcate a Geographical Area
comprising of parts of one or more districts"; further, when PNGRB amended
the Authorization Regulations in 2018 immediately prior to the 9th Bidding
Round, it did not introduce the 'district' concept in the Regulations; this
shows that the PNGRB never intended to follow the 'district' concept while
awarding GAs; merely because the GA is named 'Kanchipuram District'
cannot and does not mean that the entire/ full district has been granted to
the appellant; in the authorization granted by the PNGRB, the appellant's
own GA is named "Kanchipuram Districts" (i.e. with an 's') whereas the map
for GA No. 9.61 only refers to the GA as "Kanchipuram District"; in other
words, nomenclature is irrelevant and the map given at the time of bidding
will prevail over any other consideration; even otherwise, the demarcation of
the boundary of a district is at the discretion of the State Government, and
may undergo a change with time; as an example, India is reported to have
more than 770 districts presently, whereas this number was around 640
districts as per the Census of 2011 and 593 districts in the 2001 Census;

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 168 of 184

further, even Chennai District was enlarged by the Government of Tamil Nadu
before the start of the bid vide Government Order ("GO") dated 04.01.2018,
and several villages/ areas falling in Kanchipuram district have been carved/
brought within the Chennai district; even in the case of Kanchipuram, the
district has been split between Kanchipuram district and Chengalpattu district
post the award of the GA to the appellant; on the contrary, the boundary of
the GA (as depicted in the authorization letter issued by the PNGRB) remains
the same, and does not change even if there is a split or merger of district(s)
after the GA is awarded to a CGD entity; without prejudice to the aforesaid
submissions, even if it is assumed (without any admission whatsoever) that
the PNGRB had intended to adopt the 'district' concept for the 9th bidding
round (which it has not), PNGRB will have to follow a logical basis of
determination of the district, wherein the said district would necessarily have
to be the administrative demarcation as notified by the respective State
Government as on the date of advertisement of inviting the bids for the 9th
Round by PNGRB in April 2018 and not any arbitrary date; this is because
firstly, as a concept, 'district' is neither defined in the statute nor in the rules
or the bidding document; it is absurd to suggest that the district prevailing in
the year 2011 was used as the basis by PNGRB for bidding and development
of CGD networks in the year 2018, since several administrative and other
demographic changes had taken place across India between 2011-
2018; Secondly, the principle that the 2011 Census /area are not relevant
has been recognized by the Supreme Court itself in its judgment in the
Adani

(supra) matter; therefore, selection of district could not have been arbitrary
and the demarcation that happened by way of a Government notification,
before the notification of the advertisement inviting the bids and even before
the tender for selection of vendors to prepare the maps was awarded, could
not have been disregarded; if the argument of the appellant, that the district
boundary was to be kept as the GA were to be accepted, it would lead to

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 169 of 184

chaos and uncertainty in determining the GA boundary; the appellant has
also relied upon the communication received from PNGRB on 23.09.2021 to
claim that the maps of Survey of India/ local authorities are relevant for
ascertaining the GA boundary; however, the appellant is twisting the letter
from PNGRB out of context; vide letter dated 17.08.2021, the appellant had
requested the PNGRB to provide "digital map clearly showing the
administrative boundaries of the Kanchipuram District GA (ID- 9.61) for
detailed planning and development of infrastructure"; in response to the
aforesaid letter, PNGRB clarified, vide letter dated 23.09.2021, that it had
already provided a GIS map indicating the respective GA area and
boundaries with the authorization letter; PNGRB further clarified that the
district boundaries within the GAs are considered to be defined by the Survey
of India/ Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India or
the respective local authority such as district administration; and PNGRB
nowhere suggested that GAs had been awarded on 'district' concept.

249. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel, would also submit that the
appellant has also argued that the primary source considered by PNGRB for
identification of geographical areas is not co-ordinates but the 2011 District
Census Handbook; Firstly, this argument has already been considered and
rejected by the Supreme Court in the Adani judgment; Secondly, the
appellant's stand in this case is inconsistent with its own stand in the past;
before this Tribunal as well as the Supreme Court in the Adani litigation, the
appellant itself argued (quite rightly) that it was the bidder's responsibility to
obtain all information related to the gas supply availability and pipeline
connectivity and also existing customers, if any, in the specified geographical
area and the Census of 2011 was never the determining factor for this
purpose; thus the appellant had itself accepted, inter alia, that the Census of
2011 was only relevant for the purposes of determining the minimum net
worth of the bidding entity, and the value of the Performance Bid Bond to be

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 170 of 184

given by the successful bidder to PNGRB; the appellant had also accepted
that the reference to Census 2011 population and household numbers in the
map were only for giving an idea about population and household numbers
to the bidders with respect to the map; Thirdly, even the tender document
issued by PNGRB for the supply of customized and interactive maps
nowhere mentions that the vendor shall place reliance on the Survey of India
maps or on the district boundary as per the 2011 Census; in fact, a perusal
of the scope of work of the vendor would show that the geographical data
used by the vendor to prepare the maps could not have been "more than 2
years old"; had the intention of PNGRB been to make the Census of 2011 as
the basis for identifying the GA, it would not have inserted this condition in
the tender document; it is absurd to suggest that the data of Census of 2011
was used as the basis by the PNGRB for bidding and development of CGD
networks in the year 2018; the appellant has also placed reliance on the 2011
Census data to argue that the same matches with the data given in the legend
of the PNGRB map, the GA is based on 'descriptive' concept, and the map
issued by the Board is descriptive (as it provides the district boundary, charge
areas, villages/towns, total area, total population and total household) which
represents the intention of the Board; even this contention was raised and
rejected by the Supreme Court in the
Adani Gas
case; further, the appellant's
claim that, if the 'coordinates' test followed by the 2nd Respondent is
accepted, it would lead to an increase in the total area of GA No. 9.62/
decrease in the total area of GA No. 9.61 is also misleading; it is not even
the appellant's case that it had physically measured the total area either
before the bid or after accepting the authorization; even otherwise, without
prejudice to the submission that the Census of 2011 has no relevance in the
context of the present case, there are several cases in the 9th Bidding Round
where the data given in the PNGRB map does not match with the Census of
2011 data; one such example is the GA of Barmer, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 171 of 184

Districts (awarded to the appellant) i.e. GA No. 9.55 where the area as per
the authorization map was 89,900 sq. km. whereas the total area of Barmer,
Jaisalmer and Jodhpur as per the Census of 2011 is 89,638 sq. km; similarly,
for GA No. 9.01 of Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram Districts, the
total area as per the authorization map is 23,650 sq. km. whereas the total
area of Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram Districts as per the
Census of 2011 (District Census Handbook) is 23,537 sq. km.

C. ANALYSIS:

250. In the light of what has been held hereinabove, it is evident that the
PNGRB, in the discharge of its statutory obligations under
Section 19(1)
of
the PNGRB Act read with
Regulation 2(1)(c)
,
5(4)
, and Schedule-A of the
2008 Regulations, has determined the boundaries of both the Kanchipuram
District GA (GA 9.61) and the Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts (GA 9.62) to
be co-terminus with the then Kanchipuram District and the then Chennai and
Tiruvallur Districts. The material on record makes it abundantly clear that
the Board never intended for any part of the then Kanchipuram District to be
excluded from GA 9.61 or to be included in GA 9.62. While every other
parameter shows that the Board intended for GA 9.61 to be co-terminus with
the then Kanchipuram District, and GA 9.62 to be co-terminous with the then
Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts, the error of the map vendor, in failing to
properly fix the co-ordinates of both GAs 9.61 and 9.62, that has resulted in
this long-drawn litigation between the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent. The
material on record does not also show the Board ever having intended to
determine the contours of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 on the basis of co-ordinates.

251. While it is true that the map vendor was also directed to provide co-
ordinates, every other information required to be provided in the map clearly
show that the Board intended for the maps to be prepared treating GA 9.61
to be co-terminous with Kanchipuram District, and for GA 9.62 to be treated

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 172 of 184

as co-terminous with Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts. The present dispute
has arisen evidently because the Board did not specifically inform the
bidders of its' having determined the boundaries of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 based
on the districts' concept, besides the map vendor's error in fixing the co-
ordinates of both the GAs. Failure on the part of the PNGRB to do so, has
also resulted in our having to examine the record in detail to ascertain how
the Board has, in fact, determined GAs 9.61 and 9.62, since the exercise of
determination is a statutory obligation to be discharged by the Board in terms
of the
PNGRB Act
and the 2008 Regulations. Since the ACBD itself requires
bidders to make themselves aware of the
PNGRB Act
and the extant
Regulations, any ambiguity in the map (since the 2nd Respondent contends
that, in the light of the co-ordinates, the 19 CNG stations fell within their GAs)
required them to seek clarifications from the Board regarding the apparent
contradiction between the co-ordinates on the one hand, and every other
parameter on the map on the other. The 2nd Respondent chose not to do so,
and instead proceeded to construct and operate these 19 CNG stations
despite being aware that they were physically located in the then
Kanchipuram District, as is evident from the 2nd Respondent's letter
addressed to the Appellant on 22.02.2022.

252. Determination of the contours of a GA is at the discretion of the Board,
and it is not necessary for the Board to invariably prescribe the boundaries
of each GA on the basis of a District, since
Regulation 2(1)(c)
of the 2008
Regulations enables the GA boundary to be determined by the Board on the
basis of each district or more or less, or along with any other district in its
entirety or in part etc. As wide discretion has been conferred on the Board,
by the extant 2008 Regulations, it was unnecessary for an amendment to be
made thereto, that too to curtain the power of the Board requiring it to
determine the GA solely on the basis of a district. While the Board was not
obligated to fix the boundaries of the GA on the basis of the corresponding

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 173 of 184

district, it has been conferred the power to do so, if it considered it
appropriate. In the present case, the PNGRB has determined the
boundaries of GAs 9.61 and 9.62 on the basis of their respective districts,
and not beyond.

253. The other contentions, urged under this head, have already been dealt
with earlier in this order, and do not bear repetition. Suffice it to hold that the
impugned order, dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant, is contrary
to the extant statutory provisions and the material on record. and
necessitates interference.

XXV. OTHER ISSUES:

1. ESTOPPEL:

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF PNGRB:

254. On the applicability of the principle of estoppel, and on the issue of
bidder's responsibility to examine the Application Cum Bid Document
(ACBD) and the Annexure along with it, Sri Rahul Sagar Sahai, Learned
Counsel for the PNGRB, would submit that the Bid Document for the 9th
CGD Bidding Round was issued by the Board on 12.04.2018; some of the
important provisions of the Bid Document were as follows: (a) Clause 1.1.1
of the bid document stated that PNGRB has identified this geographical area
(GA) considering availability of natural gas and pipeline connectivity in the
GA or in its vicinity for development of CGD network; (b) Clause 1.1.3 states
that it is the bidder's responsibility to obtain all information related to the
present gas supply availability and pipeline connectivity and also existing
customers. if any, in the specific GA; (c) Clause 2.1.1 states that the bidder
is expected to examine all the contents of the Bid Document, including all
instructions, terms and conditions and all the regulations of the Board. It
further states that the bid document, together with all its annexures, shall be

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 174 of 184

considered to be read, understood and accepted by the bidder; (d) Clause
2.1.2 of the Bid Document states that the application-cum-bid document inter
alia comprises of the following annexures; (e ) Annexure 1 of the ACBD is
the Map depicting the Geographical Areas and Charge Areas: The bidder
shall carefully study the geographical area and charge areas before
submitting their Application-cum-Bid. Importantly, this map includes the
coordinates of the GA, and thus the coordinates form an integral part of the
bid document; (f) the geo-spatial coordinates (latitude and longitude) are
given in the map provided with the Bid Document; the said co-ordinates can
be clearly seen from a simple visual inspection of the map; a bare reading
of the aforesaid provisions of the ACBD make it amply clear that all the
bidders were required to carefully study the GA and charge areas before
submitting the bid; It is further evident that the Board had provided multiple
opportunities for the bidders, including the Appellant, to seek clarifications
which they required prior to the bid submission; the point raised in the
complaint, with regard to the map being erroneous, was never raised earlier;

and all other entities have already invested on the basis of the map enclosed
with the tender.

255. On the issue of submission of Schedule C, Sri Rahul Sagar Sahai,
Learned Counsel for the PNGRB, would submit that that the Appellant had
participated for both GAs - Chennai and Kanchipuram; while it was
successful in Kanchipuram, it was unsuccessful in Chennai where the 2nd
Respondent had won the bid; Schedule C submitted by the Appellant as
well as the 2nd Respondent for Chennai, at the time of bidding, included the
same map which was provided by the PNGRB; at no point of time, had the
Appellant raised the issue that the said map of Kanchipuram GA or Chennai
GA were defective; the relevant excerpts of Schedule C, submitted by the
Appellant and the 2nd Respondent for Chennai GA, and by Appellant for
Kanchipuram GA, submitted during oral hearing, the Impugned Judgment

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 175 of 184

deals with the aforementioned issue, and rightly rejects the contention of
the Appellant; it mentions that the ACBD issued by PNGRB for the 9th
Bidding Round made it clear that it was the responsibility of the bidder to
carefully study the GA and the charge areas before submitting the bid;
PNGRB further noted that, despite numerous opportunities granted by
PNGRB to submit any objection, the Appellant herein had not submitted
any objections with respect to the same; the impugned Judgment is
completely in tune with the provisions laid down under the
PNGRB Act
and
the Regulations framed thereunder; and there is no illegality or infirmity in
the Order passed by the PNGRB so as to warrant interference by this
Tribunal.

B. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT:

256. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the
appellant and the 2nd Respondent both participated and submitted their bids
for various GAs under the 9th bidding round; the appellant submitted its bid
for both GA No. 9.61 as well as 9.62. The respective maps: (i) given by
PNGRB with the Bid Document for GA Nos. 9.61 and 9.62; (ii) enclosed by
the appellant with its Schedule C (application-cum-bid) at the time of
submitting its bid for both GAs; and (iii) enclosed with the authorization
awarded to the appellant for GA No. 9.61 and to the 2nd Respondent for GA
No. 9.62 were the same; the appellant succeeded for GA No. 9.61 and
authorisation was granted to them on 26.09.2018; the 2nd Respondent was
successful for GA No. 9.62 and authorisation was granted by PNGRB to
them on 07.09.2018; the maps for GA Nos. 9.61 and 9.62 were available in
the public domain at the time of bidding and all bidders had access to the
same; the appellant, in fact, submitted its bid for both GAs; significantly, the
appellant did not seek any clarification with respect to the maps for GA Nos.
9.61 and 9.62 at the time of bidding; the map forming part of the Bid

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 176 of 184

Document was also given with the authorization of the respective GA; this
map was accepted by the parties without any objections; further, the
appellant also submitted its 'Schedule C' documents to PNGRB on the basis
of the map given by PNGRB without raising any objections; and the appellant
is, therefore, estopped from raising any objections about the PNGRB map at
this stage.

C. ANALYSIS:

257. We are in agreement with the submission, urged on behalf of the
Board, that the bidder was required to study the GA and the charge area
before submitting the application cum bid. That does not discharge the
PNGRB of its statutory obligation to clearly identify the boundaries of the GA
for which it intended to invite bids and, thereafter, to grant authorisation for
the identified GAs in terms of the Regulations. A reading of the Geographical
Area and the Charge Areas, as reflected in the map, does appear to show
that the Geographical Area No. 9.61 is the same as the Kanchipuram District
as it existed prior to 04.01.2018 and the boundaries of the Chennai -

Tiruvallur district GA corresponded to the boundaries of Chennai and
Tiruvallur districts as it existed prior to 04.01.2018. Accepting the
submission, urged both on behalf of the Board and the 2nd Respondent, that
the co-ordinates have been correctly fixed would mean that every other
information referred to hereinabove has been erroneously determined by the
map vendor.

258. It is with a view to satisfy ourselves, as to whether this seemingly far-
fetched submission urged on behalf of the Board and the 2nd Respondent
was justified, that we had called for the records to ascertain whether the
PNGRB had, at any time, consciously decided to include that part of
Kanchipuram GA (where these 19 CNG stations are located) within Chennai
and Tiruvallur district GAs or to identify the boundaries of both GA 9.61 and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 177 of 184

9.62 on the basis of co-ordinates. No such information is discernible from
the records placed before us.

259. The doctrine of estoppel by conduct means that where one by words
or conduct wilfully causes another to believe in the existence of certain state
of things and induces him to act on that belief, or to alter his own previous
position, the former is precluded from averring against the latter a different
state of things as existing at that time. The fundamental requirement as to
estoppel by conduct is that the estoppel must concern an existing state of
facts. The second requirement of an estoppel by conduct is that it should be
unambiguous. Finally, an estoppel cannot be relied on if the result of giving
effect to it would be something that is prohibited by law. Estoppel is only a
rule of evidence. (
Supdt. of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust
, (1976) 1
SCC 766). The test of estoppel by conduct of unambiguity and it not being
prohibited by law is not satisfied in the present case. The Board cannot justify
its failure to comply with its statutory obligations, in clearly and
unambiguously determining the boundaries of GA 9.61 and 9.62, seeking
shelter under this doctrine.

260. We also find it difficult to accept the submission, urged on behalf of the
PNGRB, that the impugned judgement is in accordance with the provisions
of the
PNGRB Act
and the Regulations made thereunder, or that the
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as to warrant
interference by this Tribunal.

2. IS THE APPELLANT INDIRECTLY CHALLENGING THE
BID PROCESS AND THE MAP GIVEN BY THE PNGRB?

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 178 of 184

261. Sri Gopal Jain, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
Respondent, would submit that the appellant is effectively contending that the
co-ordinates in the map given by the PNGRB be ignored, and the area which
has clearly been awarded to the 2nd Respondent be given to the appellant;
the appellant's contention has the effect of going behind the bid process after
it is over and after the authorization has also been validly awarded way back
in the year 2018; the appellant is estopped from raising any such objections
at this stage; co-ordinates bring precision and specificity and, if the
coordinates of a map are ignored or not followed, it would be virtually
impossible to accurately define the boundary of a GA; it would also lead to
chaos and uncertainty in the exact identification of the GA boundary; the geo-
coordinate map is the "primary basis" of determination of the boundary of the
GA, the legends given in the map are subordinate to the map to-scale and,
therefore, cannot substitute the primary basis (map to-scale) which fixes the
contours of the authorized GA.

B. ANALYSIS:

262. As submitted on behalf of the 2nd Respondent, the Appellant no doubt
contends that the co-ordinates given in the map are erroneous, and
inferentially claims that the said coordinates be ignored. What is left unsaid
by the 2nd Respondent is that the both the Board and the 2nd Respondent
are asking us to ignore all other information furnished in the map in
Annexure-1. As detailed hereinabove, it is because of these contradictions
in the map between the co-ordinates on the one hand, and all the other
information reflected in the map on the other, that we had perforce to
undertake the exercise of ascertaining what the Board had determined, as
the boundaries of GAs 9.61 and 9.62, in terms of the provisions of the Act
and the 2008 Regulations.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 179 of 184

263. We must express our inability to agree with the submission that, in the
absence of co-ordinates, it is impossible to define the boundaries of GAs,
and are satisfied that what the Board had identified as GAs 9.61 and 9.62
are the areas covered by the then Kanchipuram district and Chennai &
Tiruvallur districts. There is nothing either in the
PNGRB Act
or in the
Regulations or even in the ACBD to show that the Legends given in the map
are subordinate to the map to scale. Even if this contention were to merit
acceptance, the map to scale in Annexure-1 contains the charge area
boundaries, the name of the Villages with population of 5000 and more which
indicate that the boundaries of Kanchipuram District GA is co-terminus with
the then Kanchipuram District. Further, the district GA boundary, as shown
in the said map, of each of these two GAs overlap with the GA boundary.
These aspects support the Appellant's contention that the GA authorised in
their favour is the then existing Kanchipuram district.

3. MISREPRESENTATION BY THE APPELLANT:

A. SUBMISSIONS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE PNGRB:

264. On the issue of facts showing misrepresentation by the Appellant, Sri
Rahul Sagar Sahai, Learned Counsel for the PNGRB, would submit that,
unlike what has been presented by the Appellant, the Board never stated
that the GA in the instant case was based on the district boundary; it was
wrongly assumed by the Appellant as clearly brought out by the following
facts; vide letter dated 17.08.2021, the Appellant sought a "digital map"; it
also stated that the PNGRB had floated a tender for GIS based GA maps,
and it could alternatively seek the map from the said agencies; in response,
the Board, vide letter dated 23.09.2021, explicitly informed that the GIS map
indicating the respective GA area and boundaries had already been
provided; the district boundaries 'within' the GAs are considered to be as

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 180 of 184

defined by the Survey of India/ office; shockingly, the Appellant completely
misrepresented and, vide its letter dated 24.09.2021 to the District Collector,
sought the district map of Kanchipuram according to Census of India 2011,
however, falsely stated that PNGRB had informed it that along with the
authorization a GIS map indicating respective GA area and boundaries has
already been provided (the map provided by PNGRB of the Kanchipuram
district was based on Census of India 2011); It is clear that PNGRB, in its
letter, had not stated that the map provide by it was based on Census of
India, 2011; the District Collector vide its letter gave the district map of
Kanchipuram district; in yet another case of gross misrepresentation, the
Appellant wrote to IOCL vide its letter 19.10.2021, that it was informed by
PNGRB that GIS based Geographical Area Maps were not available since
the tender calling for such maps was cancelled; this statement was false as
PNGRB, vide its response dated 23.09.2021, had in fact stated that the GIS
map, indicating the respective GA area and boundaries, had already been
provided; the said tender was floated for the 11th CGD Bidding Round; and
the whole attempt seemed to be that the Appellant was trying to show that,
according to PNGRB, the district map was also the GA map which was
patently wrong.

B. ANALYSIS:

265. While it is true that the Board never informed either the Appellant or
the 2nd Respondent that the GAs were based on the district boundaries, the
documents on record as well as the documents placed for our perusal by the
Board, as referred to hereinabove, do show that the Board intended to
determine the GA boundaries on the basis of the boundaries of the
respective districts. In any event, the understanding of the Appellant, even
if it be erroneous (which we are satisfied it is not), would not amount to
misrepresentation of relevant facts.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 181 of 184

4. DOES THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PNGRB
REFLECT THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
RESPECTIVE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS WERE
DEMARCATED ON THE BASIS OF DISTRICTS?

A. SUBMISSION URGED ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:

266. Sri Paras Kuhad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that in the tender issued by the PNGRB in March
2021, for hiring an agency for supplying GIS based geographical area maps,
it is admitted that Taluka/Tehsil/Mandal constitute Charge Areas of the GAs;
in para 18.1(d), it is admitted that the population and household numbers of
the GAs are to be derived from the Census 2011 data, which shows GAs are
census units; in para 18.1(k), the commonality of the GA boundary and
administrative boundary is conceded by the Board, by requiring the vendor
to ensure that the GA boundary must coincide with the administrative
boundaries within accuracy limit of 5 metres; in para 18.7, the Board has
stipulated that, if the geo-referencing of the GA map and the GA boundary
projections are found not to be in line with the respective district boundaries,
then the GA map shall not be accepted; this constitutes a clear admission
by the Board of the primacy of district boundary over the co-ordinates
derived from geo-referencing; since this was an exercise for GAs which were
already authorised, including all 9th Round GA's, the understanding of the
Board as reflected in this tender constitutes an admission of how it
demarcated the GA at the relevant time; immediately after disputes arose
between the parties, vide letter dated 23.09.2021 addressed to the
Appellant, PNGRB stated that "district boundaries within the GAs are
considered to be as defined by the Survey of India/Office of the Registrar
General & Census Commissioner, India or respective local authority, such
as district administration"; there is a clear continuity in the exercise

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 182 of 184

undertaken by the Board; the Board having decided to identify GAs on the
basis of Districts, made its determination for Kanchipuram District GA 9.61
and Chennai and Tiruvallur Districts GA 9.62 in terms of districts, gave wide
publicity to this district based determination for the 9th CGD Bidding Round
(public notice dated 01.03.2018), asked the map vendor to prepare the maps
of the districts, issued ACBD with all the data of the corresponding districts,
evaluated reasonability of the bids with reference to the district data, and
issued authorization stating that it is for the respective districts and the
specified total extent, corresponding to the area of the respective districts; it
reaffirmed the determination based on district concept in the case of Megha
Engineering [reply to Q. 2 at p. 102 of the judgment in Appeal No. 121 of
2020] and in letter dated 23.09.2021 to AGP; and, in the 11th Round in 2021
also, admittedly, the district concept was followed, consistent with the
determination made in 2016.

B. ANALYSIS:

267. What we are concerned in the present appeal is the 9th round of
bidding, and we may not be justified in either referring to the earlier or
subsequent rounds of bidding or to the clarifications which the PNGRB may
have furnished with respect to other GAs. Reliance placed by the appellant,
on the judgment of this Tribunal in
Megha Engineering and Infrastructures
Limited Vs. Bhagyanagar Gas Limited & Ors. (Judgment
in Appeal No.
121 of 2020) is therefore misplaced.

XXVI. CONCLUSION:

268. In the light of the afore-said findings and conclusions, the impugned
order passed by the Board in case No. Legal/11/2022 dated 22.12.2022
must be, and is accordingly, set aside. Consequently the complaint filed by

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 183 of 184

the Appellant before the Board stands allowed to the extent indicated herein.

We hold that the subject 19 CNG stations are all located within the then
Kanchipuram district, and since the Kanchipuram district GA (GA 9.61) is co-
terminus with the then Kanchipuram district, these 19 CNG stations must be
held to fall within the boundaries of Kanchipuram district GA, i.e. GA 9.61.
The 2nd Respondent shall forthwith cease and desist from laying, building or
operating any of these 19 CNG stations.

269. In so far as the Appellant's claim for damages of 3 crores for each of
the 19 CNG stations, aggregating to Rs.57 crores, is concerned, we are of
the view that this relief cannot be granted in the present Appeal, since the
loss, if any, suffered by the Appellant, and the quantum of damages which
they may be entitled to as a result, must first be examined and determined
by the PNGRB after giving both the parties a reasonable opportunity of being
heard. We, therefore, grant the Appellant liberty to file a petition afresh
before the PNGRB with respect to their claim for damages.

270. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending IAs, if any, shall
also stand disposed of.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2024.

(Dr. Ashutosh Karnatak) (Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
Technical Member Chairperson

REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judgment in Appeal No. 25 of 2023 Page 184 of 184