New Delhi GAIL India has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity order that upheld the PNGRB’s decision to accept the technical bid of the Gujarat State Petronet-led consortium for laying the R5,000-crore Mallavaram-Bhopal-Bhilwara-Vijaipur gas pipeline project.

GSPL, which currently operates about 2,000 km of pipelines in Gujarat, has a 52% stake in the consortium, with Indian Oil Corp holding 26%, and Bharat Petroleum Corp and Hindustan Petroleum Corp having 11% each. The grouping had emerged as the lowest bidder for the project, ousting GAIL.

MUMBAI: Bombay high court has directed Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) to file an affidavit indicating steps it will take to prevent destruction of mangroves at the protected Sewri Bay area due to storage

With the protest against Koodankulam nuclear power plant entering its second year, the Madras High Court hearing two petitions against the project Thursday came down on union ministers, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB).

"Hearing the two petitions, the Madras High Court came down heavily on the union ministers, saying that they respect only the Supreme Court and not the other courts. The court also asked how central ministers can announce KKNPP (Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project) commissioning date when a case is being heard," P. Sundararajan, a lawyer, told IANS.

The first-ever official test to find out toxicity level in groundwater around Bhopal’s Union Carbide plant since the leak of poisonous gas in 1984 will be soon conducted with the Supreme Court on M

New Delhi Adani refused power supply to GUVNL due to rising coal prices

The Supreme Court on Monday admitted Adani Power’s appeal against the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s order asking it to supply power to state utility Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd (GUVNL) at an agreed price of R2.35 per unit for 25 years. Adani Power had, in December 2009, terminated its 2007 power purchase agreement (PPA) with the state utility for supply of 1,000 mw power on the grounds that it would not be possible to supply electricity at the earlier agreed tariff of R2.35 per unit due to high coal prices.

The Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has approved 16 iron ore mining lessees in Karnataka to resume operations, but has not permitted them to produce more than a third of their earlier annual sanctioned capacity.

These mines together have been allowed to produce 8.24 million tonnes (mt) per annum, as against their original sanctioned capacity of 26.48 mt.Sesa Goa, with sanctioned capacity of six mtpa, has been allowed to mine only 2.29 mtpa, about 38 per cent. It has a lease area of 163.5 hectares in Chitradurga district.

Jaipur: The Rajasthan high court, while hearing a case related to heath hazards due to mobile tower radiations, on Thursday sought data from the state on the number of cancer patients undergoing tr

On April 26, 2010, Chhattisgarh additional secretary (law) Ravishankar Sharma wrote to the government’s additional standing counsel in Delhi, Aniruddh P Mai: “The state government has decided to fi

The Supreme Court on Thursday decided to consider the plea for re-opening of 16 iron ore mines in Karnataka, acknowledging the adverse impact on the steel industry due to ban on mining operations.

A three-judge forest bench led by Justice Aftab Alam fixed as August 17 the date for considering the application filed by Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturing Association seeking direction to allow opening of 16 mines listed as ‘A’ category of mines having least irregularities by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to Delhi’s gas utility Indraprastha Gas Ltd (IGL) and the Centre on a petition challenging the Delhi High Court judgment that held that petroleum and natural gas regulator PNGRB has no jurisdiction to fix rates or regulate gas tariffs.

A bench headed by Justice KS Radhakrishnan sought reply from the ministry of petroleum and natural gas and IGL on PNGRB plea alleging that “the HC failed to note that it had not fixed the maximum retail price but only sought to fix the network tariff and compression tariff charges representing cost of transportation which are completely different. The latter is only one of the many components of the former’’.