Wednesday, June 26, 2019 | ePaper

Setting dispute related to the propriety of decision

  • Print
(From previous issue) :
Total capacity of the gas line, as claimed by TITAS gas, as 1,570,000 cft/hr is correct if Titas Dhanua station gas pressure is 140 psi and atmosphere pressure supply to TMBD site. However, if 45 psi. pressure is to be maintained at TMBD site, gas line capacity will be reduced to 1,440,000 cft/hr.
It is clear that gas consumption figures as mentioned in the drawing are feasible. If the supply is less than 140 psi, gas supply figures will be less than the desired values.
Technically it is possible to install automatic gas control valve at TMBD to throttle the gas supply to other factories in case TMBD RMS intel pressure goes down a certain value of 45 psi.
Gas pipeline can supply a certain amount of gas depending on the supply pressure to guarantee a supply of333333 cft/hr, supply to other has to be reduced or supply pressure at TBS has to boosted.
Gas can be supplied from existing TMBD dedicated 12" x 140 PSIG pipeline to TMBD and the other nine factories as per their gas requirement (TMBD: 333.334 scf/hr, the other nine factories: 1,107,741 scf/hr) only if the pressure at TITAS Dhanua TBS, which is the TMBD pipeline start point can be maintained to 140 psi or above.
If the intel pressure ofTMBD pipeline at TlTAS Dhanua TBS decreases below 140 psi, there will be a possibility not to able to cover total gas requirement from TMBD and the other nine factories as above."
12. The importance of dedicated line is clear from the aforesaid. The petitioner spent a significant amount for the construction of the dedicated line, in 'compelling circumstances. We would have thought that the petitioner never intended this pipe for "common use". That being said, we cannot rule out the possibility that the petitioner might have also been open to the idea that the line may be used for others only on the strict condition that the use would not, in any way, affect the petitioner's gas supply and the gas pressure.
13. The Counsel for the petitioner provided a solution; the petitioner would be agreeable to the gas connection from its dedicated line if it is ensured that the approved quantity and the approved pressure is maintained through installation of Automatic Pressure Regulated Gas Flow Control Valve. The learned Counsel further points out that the petitioner agrees to the recommendation on installation of Automatic Pressure Regulated Gas Flow Control Valve, subject, to the conditions of installation, set out below:
"No gas connection shall be given to any other factory/consumer from the upstream of TMBD 12-inch 140 PSIG dedicated gas line before the point of its connection to the intel of factory RMS of TM Textile & Garments Limited from this gas line.
Gas connection to other factories/ consumer may be made from downstream of TMBD 12-inch 140 PSIG dedicated gas line after the point of its connection to the intel of factory RMS of TM Textile & Garments Limited from this line with condition that such connection can only be made through an Automatic Pressure Regulated Gas Flow Control Valve which will work automatically to maintain a gas pressure of 40 PSIG or more at the intel of factory RMS of TM Textile situated within its factory premises. This Automatic Pressure Regulated Gas Valve shall work in such a way that if the Gas pressure at the intel of factory RMS of TM Textile falls below 40 PSIG; this Gas Valve will automatically throttle/reduce gas supply/ flow to other factories and shall ensure & maintain a Gas Pressure of minimum 40 PSIG at the intel of factory RMS of TM Textile.
Such Automatic Pressure Regulated Gas Flow Control Valve shall be procured & installed by TM Textile and its operation, maintenance & supervision will be under control of TM Textile. However, Titas Gas Transmission & Distribution Company Limited shall give necessary assistance for interconnection of this Gas Valve with the Main 140 PSIG gas line as necessary ..
No other factories shall be given gas connection from the downstream of 12-inch 140 PSIG TMBD dedicated gas line through the Automatic Pressure Regulated Gas Valve except those factories as mentioned in the Titas Gas Letter No. ZBO/Bhaluka 757-6/889 Dated 30-3-2015.
Before giving gas connection to the above factories as mentioned in TITAS Letter dated 30-3-2015 noted above, all necessary expansion-modification works of TMBD RMS situated within TITAS Dhanua TBS shall be done by TITAS Company as it is mentioned in the same TITAS Gas Letter dated 30-3-2015.
TITAS Company shall ensure to maintain always a Gas Pressure of 140 PSIG or above at the entry point of l2-inch 140 PSlG TMBD dedicated gas line from the outlet of TMBD RMS situated at TITAS Gas Dhanua TBS."
14. The learned Counsels for the respondents conceded that the suggestion is workable. It was further contended that in the interest of justice, this Division should pass order that would safeguard the petitioner and would, at the same time, benefit the nine factories.
15. That being the case, we do not find it necessary to proceed with an academic discussion on the legality of the impugned orders. We feel that justice would be best served if the Rule is disposed of with the direction upon all concerned to ensure that the petitioner is ensured the  "approved gas supply and approved pressure" at all material times. No gas connection is to be provided to the other nine factories unless the "approved gas supply and the approved gas pressure" is ensured. The respondents are further directed to ensure strict compliance with the conditions set out in the aforesaid paragraph in connection with providing gas connection to the nine factories.
16. With the above observation, we are inclined to dispose of the Rule without any order as to costs.
Communicate the Judgment and Order at once.

More News For this Category

Principal of Natural Justice

High Court Division :(Special Original jurisdiction)Sheikh Hassan Arif   JMd Badruzzaman    JAbu Syed Bhuiyan (Md) and others….…………Petitioners                VSDhaka North and South City Corporation and others……RespondentsJudgment January 9th, 2018 Local Government

Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act

Appellate Division (Civil)  Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JMuhammad Imman Ali JHassan Foez Siddique JPear Ali (Md) @  Pear Ali Bepari and others .............vsMd Abdul Hai and others............ . RespondentsJudgmentAugust

Valuation Rules and PSI Obligations

(To be continued)11. Though the Tribunal observed that CRF certified price is not tallied with the contemporary price of identical goods but did not elaborate its observation by referring

Muslim Marriage & Divorce (Registration) Rules, 2009

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Tariq-ul Hakim J Md Shohrowardi J Kazi Md Nurul Arefin ......…………………Petitioner               vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary

Ex-parte Decree by Artha Rin Adalat

(From previous issue) :8.    'The respondents of the present First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 105 of 2012 without serving any summons or notice or any copy of the said application

Valuation Rules and PSI Obligations

High Court Division :(Special Statutory Jurisdiction)Borhanuddin JSardar Md Rashed Jahangir JSaiful Alam (Md)…………..Appellant                   VSCustoms, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, and others………… Respondents    Judgment November 14th, 2018 Customs Act

Ex-parte Decree by Artha Rin Adalat

High Court Division  :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) SM Emdadul Hoque JAhmed Sohet JIslami Bank Bangladesh Limited and oters..............Plaintiffs-AppellantsvsAl-Mozadded Shipping Lines Co. and others.... Defendants-Respondents Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of

Public Procurement Act

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Rezaul Haque J Md Khurshid Alam Sarkar J Bangladesh Passengers  Welfare Samity…………................... Petitioner                 vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others ..

Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court

Appellate Division (Civil) :Syed Mahmud Hossain CJMd Imman Ali JHasan Foez Siddique JMirza Hussain Haider JBene Martime Inc..........PetitionersvsAlam Feed Limited and others........Respondents JudgmentFebruary 27th, 2018Admiralty Court Act (XLIII of

Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Borhanuddin    J     } Bangladesh Water                                                                                                                                                                                     Sardar Md Rashed } Development Board   Jahangir        J     }…………..Petitioner                               }           VSJudgment              } Additional DistrictJuly 23rd, 2018     }