OP’s Refusal of Tri-Party Gas Supply Agreement Aligns with PNGRB Rules, Not Anti-Competitive | CCI

Case Details: AGI Greenpac Ltd. v. Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. - [2025] 170 taxmann.com 400 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ms Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, Anil Agrawal, Ms Sweta Kakkad & Deepak Anurag, Member

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the informant company was operating second largest container glass manufacturing facility in country. OP was engaged in business of distribution and marketing of natural gas and implementation of City Gas Distribution (CGD) project.

The OP was authorized by Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) for implementation of CGD project. Informant entered into a Gas Sale Agreement (GSA) with the Opposite Party for sale and purchase of natural gas.

Later, informant filed information against OP alleging contravention of section 4. Informant alleged that OP was abusing its dominant position by charging unreasonably high prices. Informant also alleged that OP refused to enter into tri-partite agreement wherein informant would purchase natural gas from a third party and would use pipelines of OP for supply of same to its plant.

It was noted that by virtue of framework of PNGRB Act and regulations made thereunder, OP appeared to be a dominant player in relevant market for supply of natural gas to consumers having requirement up to 50,000 SCMD of gas in Hyderabad. It was noted that Informant had based its allegation on comparison of prices between Hyderabad and Bhongir plant.

CCI Held

The CCI observed that price in one relevant market could not be compared with other market, which operated under separate market conditions and, therefore, no case of excessive pricing was made out against OP.

Further, declaration of common carrier and/or giving authorization to act as a common carrier were governed by PNGRB Act and regulations framed thereunder and fell within purview of PNGRB and since OP had not been declared as a common carrier, OP could not have entered into a tri-partite agreement as sought by informant.

The CCI held that the conduct of OP for not agreeing to a tri-partite agreement could not be considered as anti-competitive under provisions of Act. Since no competition concern had arisen, matter was to be closed forthwith under section 26(2).