Disposed

Tata Petrodyne Limited v. the Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/6646/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a notification earmarking a oil/gas block for a new bid while a Production Sharing Contract remained in force. The Court held it impermissible to proceed with bidding before a final decision on PSC termination is communicated and directed deletion of the block reference from the notification.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.1 to delete the reference of Block CB-OS/1 from the notification dated 05.04.2018.

Tata Petrodyne Limited Vs the Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6646/2018 & CM No. 25333/2018

¶4

TATA PETRODYNE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Soli Cooper, Sr. Advocate with Ms Pooja Gera and Ms Nishtha Ghaturvedi, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms Maninder Acharya, ASG, with Mr P. S. Singh, CGSC, Mr Sahil Sood, Mr Harshul Choudhary & Mr Viplav Acharya, Advocates for UOI. Mr K. P. Sasiprabhu and Mr Somiran Sharma and Mr Aditya Shandilya, Advocates for R-2/ONGC.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶9

% 13.07.2018

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notification dated 05.04.2018 issued by the respondents identifying the Block – Block CB-OS/1 (discovery Gulf-A) ‒ which has been identified for “DSF Policy Bid Round II”. The petitioner states that the said block continues to be the subject matter of the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) entered into between the petitioner and respondent nos.2 & 3 on one part and respondent no.1 on the other part. Respondent no.1 had issued a Show Cause Notice in this regard which has been responded to. It is stated that the matter whether the said bid is to be terminated as yet, is under consideration

¶11

as no communication for terminating the PSC has been issued or communicated to the petitioner.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner earnestly contends that without having communicating a final decision with regard to termination of the PSC, it was impermissible for respondent no.1 to earmark the Block in question for a fresh bidding.

¶13

The aforementioned contention is, plainly, merited. Respondent cannot commence the process for calling for any bids in respect of the Block in question until it takes an informed decision as to the termination of the PSC.

¶14

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing respondent no.1 to delete the reference of Block CB-OS/1 as included in the impugned notification dated 05.04.2018.

¶15

It is, however, clarified that if respondent no.1 comes to the conclusion that PSC in question has to be terminated, respondent no.1 would not be precluded from taking any further steps subsequent thereto.

¶16

Needless to state that, if aggrieved, the petitioner is also not precluded in any manner from challenging such decision in accordance with law.

¶17

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pending application is also disposed of.

¶18

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶19

JULY 13, 2018 MK

Tata Petrodyne Limited v. the Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Petrodyne Limited v. the Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. K. R. Chitra Vs Registrar General, High Court of Delhi

Finest Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pragati Marbles & Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Import) & Anr.

Vicky Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bliss Trading Company Vs the Additional Director General. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors.

Lalit Kapur Vs Union of India& Anr.

Center for Law & Good Governance Vs Ministry of Power & Ors.

Rainbow Fashions, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, & Anr.

Ms. K. R. Chitra Vs Registrar General, High Court of Delhi

Amit Kumar Vs Bharati College, (University of Delhi ) & Ors.

M/S Ambica Tradexpo Private Ltd. through Its Director- Vikas Vasudeva Vs M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.

President'S Secretariat Vs R.K. Jain

Assistant Commissioner of Police Vs National Human Rights Commission

Sitwat Khalid Vs State ( Govt NCT of Delhi ) & Ors.