Bombay HC dismisses plea seeking FIR against Reliance over KG basin gas dispute

The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by activist Jitendra Maru seeking directions to the CBI to register an FIR against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its officials over alleged illegal gas extraction from ONGC wells, holding the plea to be “an abuse of the process of the court.”

The bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam observed that the petition lacked bona fides and appeared to be driven by an “oblique motive” rather than any genuine public interest.

The issue in Maru’s plea relates to the grant of adjacent gas blocks in the Krishna-Godavari Basin to RIL and ONGC. In 2013, ONGC alleged that gas had migrated from its block to RIL’s, resulting in unjust enrichment, and approached the Delhi High Court. A 2015 independent study confirmed reservoir connectivity, following which the Union government, in 2016, raised a demand of over USD 1.55 billion from RIL. RIL succeeded in arbitration, but the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench later ruled in favour of the Union government. The matter was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court, where it is yet to be heard.

After examining the facts, the bench in its detailed order stated: “In our opinion, it 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 an FIR is issued by the High Court. Registration of a criminal case is a very serious matter and entails drastic consequences for the proposed accused. No reason has been indicated in the writ petition, and the petitioner, who was present in Court, could not offer any explanation as to why he did not approach the Court earlier, if he genuinely believed that any crime had been committed in respect of the tapping of gas from ONGC wells.”

The court noted that the plea, though presented as a public cause, was merely a “pretentious projection” without any real element of public law.

The court further observed that the petitioner failed to establish his credentials or demonstrate any genuine public interest, noting that he could not substantiate his claim of being a social worker or provide details of his background.

Observing that such petitions can harm the reputation and business prospects of corporate entities, the court cautioned against entertaining litigations filed by “disgruntled persons” or for collateral purposes.

The bench said, “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 such entity, thereby affecting present or future business relationships.”

Concluding that the petition was “tainted” and devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed it in its entirety.