ORDER : 1. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following 2. Today for the first time, on the basis of the affidavits filed on behalf of Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL), this Court is sought to be informed, though not in very clear and explicit terms, that compression capacity and dispensing capacity of a station dispensing gas are two different things. Again for the first time in the affidavit dated 8th August, 2002 on behalf of IGL, this Court is being informed that "for comfortable fuelling (generally without queue or at the most waiting period of 10-15 minutes during the peak period), the sales/offtake should be around 40% of the compression capacity" and "that because sales/offtake is 66% - 68% of the compression capacity, there are long queues at CNG stations." 3. Over the last two years, various affidavits filed on behalf of IGL had assured the Court that it will be able to meet the demand of the transport sector in Delhi, but for the fact that it was not getting sufficient supplies. It is for this reason that the Union of India was directed by this Court to make available 16.1 lakh kg of CNG per day to ensure that the requirement of the transport sector in Delhi is met. It is on this basis that it was also observed, that if necessary, gas be supplied to the industry but preference should be given to the transport sector. In the affidavits filed in February, March, May, August, September and October 2001 and in I.A. No. 160 as well as in the affidavit of May 2002 what is indicated is that the requirement of the transport sector would be met by IGL if more supply is forthcoming. In the presentation to the Bhure Lal Committee of IGL in July 2001, it is stated that the CNG dispensing capacity will be 11.6 lakh kg per day by March 2002 and in another presentation it is also mentioned that IGL's commitment to this Court is to have a dispensing capacity upto 4.40 lakh kg per day by September 2001 and that as on 16th November, 2001 the dispensing capacity was 4.40 lakh kg per day. It is clear that despite the new Managing Director having taken over in July 2001, this Court was completely kept in dark and was misled with regard to the correct state of affairs. It is clear that despite the new Managing Director having taken over in July 2001, this Court was completely kept in dark and was misled with regard to the correct state of affairs. It was on the basis that the compression capacity and the dispensing capacity was one and the same, and, with the increase in supply of gas, the company would be able to dispense greater quantity of CNG to the consumers, that various orders were passed by this Court. 4. There is no expression of regret or remorse for the incorrect information having been supplied to this Court. We, therefore, issue notice to the Shri A.K. De, Managing Director of IGL to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him and the company for having misled this Court in passing various orders. Notices be issued to Shri Rajeev Sharma, Shri L. Lobo and Shri P.S. Bhargava. Notices returnable on 23rd September, 2002 for directions. All of them should be present in Court on that day. We may here notice that Mr. P. Chidambaram during course of submissions submitted that the demand of CNG projected at 16.1 lakh kg per day in Delhi is erroneous and grossly exaggerated. 5. Since IGL has failed to discharge its obligation, the Union of India is directed to inform the Court on the next date of hearing what remedial steps can be taken to ensure full and proper dispensation of CNG to the transport sector without there being any queue. List on 23rd September, 2002 for directions.