A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the BPCL’s appeal and upheld its single judge’s order that had refused to interfere with the Aptel’s order.
Before the Aptel, the PSU oil companies have raised the issue whether the pipeline commissioned by them for their exclusive use for transporting Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) produced at their Mumbai refinery to their storage tanks at Mumbai International Airport is a common/contract carrier for the petroleum and petroleum product pipeline under Section 20 of the PNGRB Act.
The oil companies argued that the effect of permitting impleadment of RIL will open the floodgates of all necessary parties including airlines who would be the ultimate consumers of the ATF to interfere in the proceedings which are not postulated under the Act.
On the other hand, RIL argued that the entire process was initiated at its instance of RIL, and, therefore, it cannot be stated that it does not have any stake. The RIL’s counsel argued that if the Board had taken a decision not to declare the pipelines in question as a contract carrier, then RIL could certainly have maintained an appeal against such a decision and if RIL could have maintained an appeal against the decision, then it automatically becomes a necessary and a proper party before the tribunal.
BPCL and HPCL had moved the Aptel challenging the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board order designating their petroleum and petroleum product pipelines as common carriers. In 2016, RIL submitted a request to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board to declare the aviation turbine fuel pipelines emanating from the refineries of BPCL and HPCL as a common carrier.During the pendency of the appeal before the tribunal, RIL sought its impleadment in the case for being a proper and necessary party. The Aptel in November last year allowed RIL to become a party to the proceedings, a stand vehemently opposed by the PSU oil firms.
