Govt to blame, not us, for gas outcome: RIL

If Anil Ambani’s Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL) is aggrieved at Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries Ltd for not proceeding with the private agreement between the two brothers on gas supply from the latter’s fields, it should instead blame the Union government, said RIL’s senior counsel, Harish Salve, at the Supreme Court today.

“We had assumed marketing freedom when we divided gas in a 60:40 ratio between the two groups (in the agreement signed in 2006),” Salve told the three-judge bench. Instead came the official gas utilisation policy, which directed that the government would decide whom the gas would be sold to and at what price. “We kept telling the government that gas utilisation policy should have been brought before the Nelp (New Exploration Licensing Policy, for oil and gas sites).”

RIL, said Salve, had vehemently protested against the government taking away its marketing freedom, whereas the Anil Ambani group had actually sought regulation of fuel sale in 2007.

As for the agreement between the two brothers, the basis on which RNRL is basing its case, Salve reiterated the point he made at the outset of the hearing on Tuesday, that it was a private and ‘secret agreement’ between the two brothers, one that was never placed before the RIL Board and its shareholders. It couldn’t be, is his argument, since it was superseded by government policy.

“A secret agreement between the two promoters that affect three million shareholders cannot be binding on the company… The MoU is not worth the paper on which it is written as far as RIL is concerned,” said Salve.

When the Bench asked if the gas utilisation policy was notified, Salve said it was not and customers/sectors identified in it were passed on to RIL in the form of instructions. He noted the policy was formulated by an Empowered Group of Ministers (a sub-committee of the Union Cabinet).

The MoU cannot be made a part of the de-merger scheme (between the two brothers, splitting the erstwhile Ambani empire) since the scheme did not mention the MoU, he said.