Bombay High Court Refuses CBI Probe Against Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries For Allegedly Stealing Gas From ONGC Fields

The Bombay High Court on Friday (March 27) dismissed a petition seeking CBI probe against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its director Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani for allegedly stealing over USD 1.55 billion worth of natural gas from neighbouring Oil and Natural Gas Corporations (ONGC) wells in the Krishna Godavari Basin, off the coast of Andhra Pradesh.

The petition was filed by Jitendra P Maru, an Indian citizen, urging the court to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Union of India to take action.

A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam pronounced the order in open court, stating, "A person approaching the writ Court must establish his bona fides. He must come clean to the Court and not with soil hands which has suppressed material facts from the Court. He must also prima facie demonstrate that he is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the petition. This writ petition fails on each count and has been filed with a tainted motive."

The judges noted that Maru has sought registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against RIL based on certain observations made by the Delhi High Court way back in 2003 when the initial dispute between RIL and Union of India, had commenced. 

"In our opinion, this is not in public interest that a writ petition based on certain observations made by the Court is entertained and a direction for registration of a FIR  is issued by the High Court. The registration of a criminal case is a very serious matter and it entails drastic consequences to the proposed accused person. There is no reason indicated in the writ petition and the petitioner who was present in the Court could not offer any explanation why he did not approach the Court earlier if at all he had a genuine reason to believe that any crime was committed in respect of the tapping of gas from ONGC oil wells," the bench opined. 

The judges said that the professed cause and the purpose behind the instant petition which is masked as the public cause are mere pretentious projections.

"This writ petition is in the nature of a public interest litigation which does not serve any public purpose. There must be a public law element involved in the writ petition because the High Court takes a decision only upon considerations germane to the public law. This is the experience across the High Courts that the writ petitions of this kind or a petition masked as a public interest litigation is filed at the behest of the failed competitor or a rival business house or a disgruntled person," the judges said.

Further, the bench remarked, "A petition like the present one causes serious harm to the reputation and business prospects of any Corporate entity. An attempt like this carries an inbuilt threat which may percolate into the minds of the business partners of any Corporate entity and thus threatening a present or future business partnership."

Concluding that the instant writ petition is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court, the bench therefore, dismissed the same.

According to the petition, RIL allegedly engaged in a “massive organized fraud” from 2004 to 2013-14 by drilling sideways from its contracted deep-sea wells into adjacent ONGC wells in the Krishna Godavari Basin, illegally extracting natural gas. ONGC officials discovered the unauthorized extraction in 2013 and reported it to the Government of India.

RIL claimed the gas was “migratory,” arguing it had the right to extract it. An independent investigation by De Golyer and Macnaghten (D&M) confirmed that RIL had tapped gas from ONGC wells without permission. Subsequently, the Justice AP Shah Committee quantified the stolen gas at over USD 1.55 billion, with accrued interest of USD 174.9 million.

Earlier, RIL had secured an Arbitral Award in its favor in its dispute with ONGC, but the Delhi High Court Division Bench, in its 14th February 2025 order, allowed the Union of India's appeal and set aside the award. The court concluded the award was against public policy and had set aside the order in favour of Reliance.

The petition claims that the alleged conspiracy originated in Mumbai, giving the CBI jurisdiction to investigate. It seeks directions to register a criminal case against RIL and its directors for theft, dishonest misappropriation, and breach of trust.

Maru also seeks the seizure of all relevant documents including contracts, investigative reports, and the A.P. Shah Committee findings and urges the court to ensure formal charges are filed against all known and unknown individuals involved.

Appearance:

Advocate Rajendra Desai, Kunal Bhanage and Akshay Pawar appeared for the Petitioner.

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Munde and Advocate Jai Vohra represented the CBI.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh along with Advocates Neha Patil, Aditya Thakkar, Krishnakant Deshmukh, Adarsh Vyas, Rama Gupta and Rajdatt Nagre represented the Union Government.

Additional Public Prosecutor SV Gavand represented the State.

Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Vikram Nankani along with Advocates Rubin Vakil, Ashwin Dave, Rishit Badiani and Gaurav Gangal instructed by AS Dayal & Associates represented RIL.

Case Title: Jitendra Punamchand Maru vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Writ Petition 5542 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 150

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment