Gas Wars and Crony Capitalism

I just finished reading 'Gas Wars and Crony Capitalism and the Ambanis' by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Subir Ghosh and Jyotirmoy Chaudhuri. Have been following this issue closely over the past few years and have been reading extensively on it. A lot of stuff in the book is debatable (especially the case about higher gas pricing) but a few facts stand out clearly.

1. The Production Sharing Contact (PSC) initially allowed the government to fix the price and allocate supplies of its own share of gas and allowed the contractor (RIL in this case) the freedom to price it's own share and sell to whoever it wanted to.
2. As per the PSC terms assuming that it was free to price and sell its own share of gas RIL participated in competitive bidding to supply gas to the power plants owned by NTPC and won the contract by the virtue of being the lowest bidder at $2.34 per mmbtu.
3. The Ambani siblings had a fallout and their business interests were split. MDA agreed to supply gas to a ADA controlled company at the same price at which it was going to supply to NTPC. This was documented in a family agreement endorsed by both the brothers in the presence of their mother in front of the media.
4. RIL later approached the government and asked it to fix the price at which it could sell gas. It is not very clear according to the documents in the public domain whether it was for the governments share of gas or the entire gas which RIL expected to produce from the KG basin. If it is the later case it is indeed strange and weird because the company should not have participated in competitive bidding earlier if it always intended for the government to fix the price. It might not be illegal but is certainly unethical.
5. MDA's legal team later claimed that the family agreement was invalid because it was not endorsed or seen by the board of RIL. Once again, signing the agreement by MDA and later claiming that it was invalid was not exactly illegal but definitely unethical.
6. ADA challenged this and won in the High Court but MDA appealed and the case went to SC, the  government joined in saying the gas belonged to it and it should be a party to any quarrel over the rights to price or use the gas. The stand taken by the government was correct because technically it does own the gas on behalf of the people of India.
7. The  government argued that it reserved the sole right to price and allocate the natural gas as per national interest. It also argued that only the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) had the right to decide the pricing at which RIL could sell the gas and to whom could RIL sell the gas. This stand was completely against the terms and spirit of the PSC but  surprisingly RIL did not oppose this and agreed to the stand taken by the  government. It portrayed itself as a mere contractor who just extracted the gas and was obliged to supply to whomever the  government asked at whatever price it asked and hence was unable to sell it at previously contacted price to ADA group company (RNRL) and NTPC.
8. Again the above stand was not illegal but definitely hints at some sort of collusion between the  government and RIL to deny cheap gas to RNRL and NTPC. In asserting it's rights to price and distribute a national resource the  government had unknowingly (or maybe knowingly) harmed it's own company.
9. RIL chose not to contest the  government stand on the pricing and supply of gas but did contest many other provisions of the PSC later which related to the recovery of its capital investment in developing the has fields. It did not go to court this time but chose arbitration. Again RIL selectively agreeing and disagreeing with the government when it suits it is definitely not illegal but just raises the question about it's motives.
10. The actual cost of developing the gas field is debatable given the complexity of the terrain. The logic to link gas prices to international rates is again debatable because by definition the  government is the  custodian of the national resources of the nation and should use them for the welfare of the state, this makes a strong case for lowering the has prices but again there is also a case to be made for linking them to international prices to attract foreign investors and be fair to them. It is definitely bad for the reputation of the country among foreign investors if the government were to invite investments but not allow investors to make a profit.
11. The SC did make a very fair and pertinent observation on the governments claim that bids were invited to outsource the gas production because the government does not have the money or the  technology to do this itself. It observed that if this was the case then the bidding should have been restricted to PSUs which have the money (like ONGC) and can buy the technology (if they actually do not have it, which is very hard to believe). If the government genuinely had the best interest of the country in mind and wanted to ensure cheaper  electricity and fertilizers for the people it should have given the contact to PSUs and directed them to sell at a low price.

Conclusion:

• It will be very tough to prove that RIL or the government acted illegally, it is very clear from the documents available in the public domain that RIL supported the  government when it suited it and opposed it when it's profits were in danger, which again is not illegal, being a publicly traded company it has a responsibility to maximize profits for its shareholders.
• ADA did get a raw deal and RIL / MDA acted in bad faith, the government also indirectly supported MDA in this corporate battle. Nothing illegal done so no case here and if we are taking about unethical behavior than RIL is not the only corporate to behave in such a manner, scores of companies across the world would do the same to protect their profits and maximize them. ADA's lawyers should have read the fine print or thought of various eventualities. 
• The government definitely didn't act as a responsible custodian of the national resource (gas in this case), if it had acted in the interest of the nation then the gas would have been priced cheaper and the production from the KG basin might have been higher (debatable again).
• Because RIL has acted unethically and in bad faith earlier it is giving the impression that it is deliberately delaying / reducing production from the KG basin to maximize its profits. This is an unproven allegation but past behavior and current circumstances point to the fact that it is indeed doing this and has the active support of some elements in the government. I doubt if any of this can be proven in the court of law.
• RIL is an extremely smart operator and has covered it's bases very well. It has taken advantage of the grey areas in policy and legal contacts and turned them to it's advantage. If I were an investor ( I do not own any shares in RIL), I would be very inclined to invest in the company (provided I look at the situation objectively).

Your views and comments are welcome.

Note: I have read many articles written by renowned experts which argue for the case for lower gas pricing. I have also had a heard a highly respected former head of a PSU who sits on several government committees regarding hydrocarbons and energy talk on this matter where he argued for linking gas prices to international rates. I am hundred percent convinced that he is not pro RIL and his view was an independent one. I still remain confused on the matter and hence didn't delve into it deeply.