The project participants have very cleverly changed the DOE so that they are not required to answer the earlier Global stakeholder comments received, however the DOE (might not be concerned) and CDM EB should take into account the previous concerns of stakeholders. Without closing those comments the project should not be taken forward. The previous comments can be referred at, 
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/6K9BLL1BKBDHXCNRED0KWA1NY9GWOE/view.html  

Intentionally, this time PP submitted this project to a new DOE where the technical competence is questionable to resolve the serious and authentic comments raised by the stake holders. Has the new DOE ever bothered why the earlier DOE validation contract got terminated?

It was very clear from the previous comments that the project start date should be the EPC contract signed date and not the financial closure. 

The project was completed in 2006 yet it could only be commissioned in 2009 thereby itself demonstrating the unavailability of NG for the 3 year period. This can be easily checked by a simple cross-check in google. Request the DOE to do the needful. 

The funny part of the PDD is to demonstrate its serious CDM consideration it says ERPA was signed in 2005, however it expired in 2007. Till this date even the Validator for the project was not finalized again this shows lack of seriousness for CDM, it has been now 7 years from 2003 the first EPC placed by the project and there is no progress of CDM. Why does the PP require the CDM benefits now?
The PP has already commissioned the project without any CDM registration, at this stage I ask the PP, will they stop the project if they do not get CDM funds?

They will not stop the project now, thus proving that CDM was never important for the operation of the project.