Thursday December 14, 2017
Home India SC turns down...

SC turns down gas tariff regulation plea by PNGRB

0
78
Photo Credits: www.indiatvnews.com

New Delhi: Companies supplying gas are now free to fix their own tariff with the Supreme Court turning down a plea by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) seeking power to regulate prices of intra-city supplies on Wednesday.

An apex court bench, headed by Justice Dipak Misra, dismissed a PNGRB plea seeking control over the supply of gas by different companies, including Indraprastha Gas Limited, within cities.

Sunplus Corp.

The Board contended that even if it was not fixing maximum retail prices of gas. IGL and other gas companies should provide the documents related to intra-city supplies, so that it could post on its website the MRP the consumers should pay.

IGL refused to share these details with the Board.

The PNGRB challenged in the apex court a decision of Delhi High Court on June 1, 2012, which quashed the board’s order on network tariff and compression charge.

The high court held that PNGRB was not empowered to fix or regulate maximum retail price at which gas was to be sold by IGL to its consumers.

The high court also said that the Board was not empowered to fix any component of network tariff or compression charge for any entity like IGL having its own distribution network, while quashing PNGRB order dated April 9, 2012, fixing maximum retail price and requiring IGL to disclose the network tariff and compression charges to its customers.

PNGRB asked IGL in 2012 to reduce network traffic by 63 percent and ordered the company to refund the difference to customers with retrospective effect from April 1, 2008.

Among the transport fuels, compressed natural gas (CNG) has become 27 percent cheaper than diesel after reduction in natural gas prices from April 1 to 4.66 per million British thermal units (mBtu).

n5 cng
Photo Credits: www.indiatvnews.com

After the government’s latest gas price revision, IGL cut the CNG rate to Rs.37.55 per standard cubic metre (scm).

Before the reduction, piped natural gas (PNG) was five percent costlier than subsidized cooking gas.

While announcing the cut in CNG and PNG prices on April 1, IGL said that at the revised price, the economics in favour of CNG would be over 22 percent compared to diesel-driven vehicles.

CNG also works out nearly 55 percent cheaper on running cost when compared to petrol-run vehicles.

IGL caters for about 800,000 CNG vehicles in the national capital region, including 520,000 private cars.

(IANS)

Next Story

Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Rapped by Delhi High Court for Questioning Judge’s Decision

Arun Jaitley, represented by advocates Rajiv Nayar and Sandeep Sethi, filed a defamation suit against Kejriwal

0
34
Arvind Kejriwal
Arun Jaitley filed a defamation suit against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders. Wikimedia

August 26, 2017: Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi Chief Minister, was rapped by the Delhi High Court today for questioning a judge’s decision to expedite defamation case filed by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

Also Read: Kapil Mishra Questions Arvind Kejriwal’s Absence in the Assembly Meet as Delhi CM skips Fourth Day in a row

Arun Jaitley accuses the AAP leaders of going against DDCA irregularities and disparaging Jaitley and his family on social media. Jaitley alleges that the AAP leaders have harmed his reputation and made defamatory statements.

The accused are Arvind Kejriwal, Kumar Vishwas, Sanjay Singh, Ashutosh, Raghav Chadha and Deepak Bajpai. The five AAP leaders had accused Jaitley of corruption charges as President of Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA).

Arun Jaitley, represented by advocates Rajiv Nayar and Sandeep Sethi, filed a defamation suit against Kejriwal.

On 26th July, the joint registrar was directed by the court to expedite the civil defamation suit.

Arvind Kejriwal’s advocate Anoop George Chaudhary was asked by the Judges why Arvind Kejriwal would file such a plea.

The bench comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Gita Mittal explained that the high court was answerable to the Supreme Court about the delay of the case.


NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt.

Click here- www.newsgram.com/donate

Next Story

Supreme Court to hear Pleas challenging Article 35A after Diwali, which talks about Special Rights and privileges of Permanent Residents of Jammu and Kashmir

Article 35A talks about special rights and privileges given to only permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir

0
40
The Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India. Wikimedia
  • The plea said that the special status which people of Jammu and Kashmir enjoys should be canceled
  • In 1954 by a Presidential Order, Article 35A was added to the Indian Constitution
  • The Plea has also challenged a particular provision of the Constitution which denies the right over the property to a woman who marries someone who is from outside the state 

New Delhi (India), August 25, 2017: After Diwali, the Supreme Court of India will hear pleas which challenge the Article 35A, the article talks about special rights and privileges given to people who are permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir.

Supposedly, the date decided for the hearing of pleas was August 29 but both the Centre and state government of Jammu and Kashmir wanted 4 weeks’ time in order to file their replies respectively, due to this reason the hearing has been postponed to a later date.

The plea said that the special status which people of Jammu and Kashmir enjoys should be canceled.

The Supreme Court was earlier in favor of hearing the case by a constitution bench consisting of 5 judges if the Article 35A is ultra vires (beyond one’s legal power or authority) of the Indian Constitution or if there is any sort of procedural lapse (defective execution of work).

Also Read: Landmark Judgement: Right to Privacy Becomes Fundamental Right of India, Rules Supreme Court

The meaning of Article 35A as per Constitution is that the article gives the right to the state legislature of Jammu and Kashmir to call them permanent residents of that state and also give those (permanent residents) some special rights and privileges whereas by article 370 a special status is given to the state- Jammu and Kashmir.

In 1954 by a Presidential Order, Article 35A was added to the Indian Constitution. According to ANI report, “It also empowers the state’s legislature to frame any law without attracting a challenge on grounds of violating the Right to Equality of people from other states or any other right under the Indian Constitution.” This is the kind of power that this Article holds.

This Article was dragged into controversy after a 2nd plea, was filed by a lawyer and former member of the National Commission for Women Charu Wali Khanna. In her plea, she challenged Article 35A of the Indian Constitution and also Section 6 (talks of permanent residents of the state) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution.

Also Read: Long pending injustice to Muslim Women! Supreme Court Hearing in India to Decide Validity of Muslim Divorce Practice “Triple Talaq”

The Plea has also challenged a particular provision of the Constitution which denies the right over the property to a woman who marries someone who is from outside the state. This provision which leads the woman to lose rights over property is also applied to her son.


NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt.
Click here- www.newsgram.com/donate

 

 

Next Story

Shia Waqf board in Favor of Building Mosque at some distance from Hindu temple at disputed Ayodhya site

Shia Waqf board is in favor of building the mosque at some distance from the Hindu temple at the disputed Ayodhya site

0
49
Mosque to be shifted away from disputed Ayodhya site
Mosque to be shifted away from disputed Ayodhya site. Pixabay
  • Masjid and Mandir should be avoided in as much as both denominations using loudspeakers tend to disturb the religious performances of each other
  • Masjid can be located in a Muslim dominated area at a reasonable distance from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purushottam Shri Ram
  • The Shia Waqf board in its affidavit said that out of court settlement should be considered in order to end the dispute

New Delhi, August 9, 2017:  Supreme Court will begin the hearing of a vital Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid dispute in a few days. The Uttar Pradesh Shia central waqf board (one of the parties in the litigation) is in favor of shifting the demolished mosque, away from Ayodhya site in order to put an end to the much controversial dispute.

The Shia board, trying to put to rest the 70-year legal battle, said that the mosque can be constructed away from the disputed Ayodhya site, a dramatic shift in stand by them. The Shia board also suggested something to amicably settle the dispute- A high-power judicial-political panel should be set up, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. It also requested the court to appoint the committee having two retired Allahabad High Court judges, chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, a nominee of the Prime Minister besides representatives of litigating parties.

The board, as per the affidavit filed and submitted to the apex court – The mosque can be relocated from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purushottam Shri Ram to a nearby area which is Muslim dominated and this move will conclude the dispute on the 2.77 acres of land which houses a makeshift temple of Ram Lalla.

ALSO READ: Akhilesh Yadav wants to maintain status quo in Ayodhya’s disputed site

The Shia stand can however likely cause a conflict with the Sunni Waqf Board. While Sunnis make a majority of Muslims in India, the decision of a section of the community represented by the Shia waqf board is important. This is the 1st time that religious board has favored for the shifting of the mosque.

Taking a dig at Sunni Waqf board, Shia Board said in its affidavit that the Sunni Central Waqf Board should not get involved in exploring peaceful settlement of the dispute as “it is under the dominant control of hardliners, fanatics, and non-believer in peaceful coexistence, who have absolutely no stakes in the case”.

According to TOI report, the Shia board said (in an affidavit filed by advocate MC Dhingra), “It is of the view that closeness of place of worships— Masjid and Mandir, of the two litigating denominations, should be avoided in as much as both denominations using loudspeakers tend to disturb the religious performances of each other, often leading to conflicts, bringing bitterness between the two factions. The answering respondent is of the view that to bring peace to the situation, Masjid can be located in a Muslim dominated area at a reasonable distance from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purushottam Shri Ram.”

ALSO READ: Government seeks solution to Ramjanmbhoomi dispute through talks: Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath in Ayodhya

Since 1945, Shia waqf board along with the Sunni waqf board have been fighting a legal battle claiming the ownership of Babri Masjid, the HC gave its verdict in favor of the Sunni Board when it divided the disputed plot three ways between the Board, Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara.

[sociallocker][/sociallocker]

The Allahabad High Court order which came on September 30, 2010, but the verdict was immediately challenged by different parties before the apex court. Since then no progress has been made in the case and it’s pending from then. The apex court agreed to grant an early hearing and has posted the case to August 11, 2017.

The Shia Waqf board in its affidavit said that out of court settlement should be considered in order to end the dispute. It said, “Considering the Muslim tenets of living in peace and harmony and respecting the religious sentiments of other communities following different religions, in this case, Hindu Community, it is ready and willing to conclude the peaceful settlement of the dispute, which it fondly hopes will be acceptable to all the stake holders.”

– prepared by Kritika Dua of NewsGram. Twitter @DKritika08


NewsGram is a Chicago-based non-profit media organization. We depend upon support from our readers to maintain our objective reporting. Show your support by Donating to NewsGram. Donations to NewsGram are tax-exempt.
Click here- www.newsgram.com/donate