Individual Cannot Stall Entire Functioning Of A Board Because Majority Differs From His View: Delhi High Court

"An individual cannot try to stall the entire functioning of the Board by stating that the decision taken by the Board are against his views because the majority differs from his view," the Delhi High Court has recently observed.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with a contempt petition filed by a Member (Legal) of the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board constituted under the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.

In 2009, a Public Interest Litigation was filed challenging the illegal and arbitrary manner in which the Board, which was represented by the Central Government, was being run by the Chairman.

It was thus submitted that despite a specific direction of the High Court that a collective decision making process by the Board has to be adopted and delegation of essential core functions by the Chairman is contrary to the spirit of the Act, the said directions were not being adhered to, and, therefore, there had been a wilful disobedience of the directions so passed.

It was submitted by the petitioner that in spite of being a Member of the Board, he was excluded and was not made a part of the collective decision making process and that the respondents had taken decisions which were non- collegiate and continued to delegate the core functions to the Chairman.

It was also stated that petitioner was not permitted to participate in the bidding and the decision of authorisation of large number of entities in the 9th and 10th City Gas Distribution (CGD) bidding. It was stated that petitioner was altogether excluded from the process of decision making for grant of authorisation.

It was the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner who was a Member (Legal) could not have been excluded in the monitoring related activities. It was stated that the meeting was a mere formality and the decision was pre-decided and therefore he did not attend it.

On the other hand, the respondent submitted that a Board was functioning within the four corners of the Act and that the High Court in the PIL was specifically dealing with an application of authorisation made by the IGL which was rejected without the same being placed before the Board.

At the outset, the Court observed:

"As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that facts in the case of Voice of India (supra), what was noted by this Court was that the Chairman was taking decision without the matter being placed before the Board at all. Learned counsel for the respondent is correct in stating that the mandate of the said judgment was that only Chairperson cannot act on his own accord without placing the matter before the Board. It is not the case of the petitioner that the matters were not placed before the Board."

On the short question as to whether the action amounted to wilful disobedience, the Court noted that the petitioner was a Member (Legal) of the Board and that it was not the case that a Board meeting was not conducted.

"The purpose of Board meeting is that a decision is to be taken in the meeting of the Board and a person who has a different view can give their dissent. An individual cannot try to stall the entire functioning of the Board by stating that the decision taken by the Board are against his views because the majority differs from his view," the Court said.

The Court also noted that the petitioner was Member of the Board from 04.12.2017 and 19.03.2020 and that he had chosen to file the petition after retirement.

"Be that as it may, there is nothing in this petition to show that matters were not being placed before the Board and that a decision was not being taken by the Board," the Court said.

While the Court was of the view that the contempt petition had no merits, it however said that it was open for the petitioner to challenge the individual decisions taken by the Board if the same were contrary to the mandate of the Act.

"This contempt petition would not lie for the reliefs prayed for. Liberty to the said effect is granted to the petitioner," the Court said.

The plea was accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: DR S S CHAHAR v. SH D K SARRAF & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 348

Click Here To Read Order