Statutory limits on gas pricing powers barred the regulator from fixing retail price or expanding tariff control beyond the Act.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2008 was read as distinguishing a common carrier or contract carrier from a city or local natural gas distribution network. The Board could regulate transportation rates and access within the statutory scheme, but the Act did not authorise it to fix the consumer-facing retail price of gas or to compel disclosure of retail price components in bills. Section 61 could not enlarge the Board's substantive powers beyond the parent Act, and the phrase "subject to the provisions of this Act" in Section 22 kept tariff powers within the limits set by Section 11. Regulations travelling beyond that authority were therefore ultra vires and invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board had power under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2008 to fix or regulate the maximum retail price of gas or to determine network tariff and compression charge for a city or local natural gas distribution network, and whether the impugned regulations and order were within the Board's statutory authority.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between a common carrier or contract carrier on one hand and a city or local natural gas distribution network on the other. Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2008 were read together with Section 11, which controlled the Board's functions. The expression "subject to the provisions of this Act" in Section 22 meant that the tariff-making power could not override the limits set by Section 11. The Board was empowered to regulate transportation rates for common carrier or contract carrier and to regulate access to a city or local natural gas distribution network, but the Act did not confer power to fix the consumer-facing price of gas or to require disclosure of such price components as part of the retail bill. Section 61, being a delegated power, could not enlarge the substantive power conferred by the parent Act. The Court rejected the plea that any omission was accidental or could be supplied by construction, holding that the regulations could not travel beyond the Act.

Conclusion: The Board had no statutory authority to fix the retail price of gas or to regulate network tariff and compression charge in the manner assumed by it, and the regulations and order to that extent were ultra vires and invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulation-making power under a parent statute cannot be used to enlarge the substantive jurisdiction of the regulator beyond what the Act expressly or by necessary implication authorises, and a provision made "subject to" the Act must yield to the controlling scheme of the parent enactment.

---