Delhi High Court will hear the plea for the matter on June 4, 2021
The Delhi High Court Friday stated it’ll hear on June 4 a plea by state-run ONGC for vacating an interim order placing on maintain its tender discover and the resultant e-auction on the market of pure fuel from its block within the Krishna-Godavari (KG) basin in Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh was knowledgeable by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the applying has been filed in opposition to the excessive courtroom’s May 20 order as keep of the e-auction was “ultimately leading to loss of public money”.
The courtroom stated it’ll hear the matter on June 4, the date already fastened on May 20 when the discover inviting tender (NIT) and e-auction have been stayed. The utility has been filed after the Supreme Court declined to entertain the appeals filed by ONGC and the Centre in opposition to the order and requested them to method the excessive courtroom for trip of the interim order.
The excessive courtroom on May 20 had stated {that a} prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioners — two GMR group corporations — and steadiness of comfort was additionally of their favour, as finalisation of the bidding would trigger irreparable loss to them.
“We, therefore, stay the operation, implementation, execution, and finalization of the NIT dated April 12, 2021 as well as corrigendum to the NIT issued on April 27, 2021, and the consequent e-auction, till the next date of hearing,” the bench had stated.
With the statement the courtroom had listed on June 4 the pleas by GMR Vemagiri Power Generation Ltd and GMR Rajamundhry Energy Ltd difficult the NIT and looking for a keep on any new allocation or allotment of fuel from the KG-basin of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC).
Under the April 12 NIT, ONGC had invited bids in respect of two.0 Million Metric Standard Cubic Meter per Day (MMSCMD) of fuel from its KG-basin in Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. The corporations have sought a keep on any additional allocation on the bottom that the Centre and ONGC did not ship the fuel allocation assured to them. They have additionally informed the courtroom that pursuance to the Centre and ONGC’s assurance they’ve made substantial investments to the tune of Rs 1,000 crore.
The two corporations had additionally contended that there was a stress confronted by the facility sector and the results of the e-auction can be that the pure fuel shall be provided to the opposite sectors at the next value.
They have additionally claimed that the public sale was in full variance with the statutory framework for allocation of coal for coal-based energy tasks. The two corporations have additionally challenged a March 21, 2016 notification of the Petroleum Ministry which offers for ahead public sale — fuel can be allotted to the best bidder — and so they have contended that this might be discriminatory to them.
The two corporations had informed the bench that if the public sale was not stayed, they are going to be compelled to bid and take part within the e-auction for procuring allocation of the fuel, which was to be allotted to them as per the assurances of the Centre and ONGC and due to this fact, irreparable loss and damage can be induced to them.
The Centre and ONGC, on May 20, had urged the courtroom to not go the order staying the NIT and e-auction, however the bench declined the request, saying the NIT was issued on April 12, 2021, 60 months after the Petroleum Ministry’s 2016 notification and “heavens are not going to fall” if one other two weeks go bye.
“We have considered the documents as aforementioned and examined the facts and circumstances, brought out above, including the investment of approximately more than Rupees one thousand crores by the petitioners, as averred in the petition.
“Upon conjoint studying of the aforesaid paperwork, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioners. Balance of comfort can be in favour of the petitioners and if the bidding course of is finalized, it could trigger irreparable loss to the petitioners,” the bench stated.
