M/S Jay Mahakal Filling Station ... vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 6363 MP

                                                                               1
                                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                       AT INDORE
                                                                              BEFORE
                                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                                      ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2022

                                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 10120 of 2019

                                                    Between:-
                                            1.      M/S JAY MAHAKAL FILLING STATION THR.
                                                    UMESH S/O CHHAGANLAL JI SOLANKI PARTNER
                                                    WARD NO.5, MAIN ROAD SATWAS (MADHYA
                                                    PRADESH)

                                            2.      KRISHANA     MURARI     S/O    MOHANLAL
                                                    OCCUPATION: PROPRITOR, M/S PARASAR FILING
                                                    STATION 78, JAWAHAR MARG, KANTHAFOD,
                                                    (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                                                    (NONE APPEARS FOR PETITIONER )

                                                    AND

                                            1.      UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
                                                    PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS GOVERNMENT
                                                    OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                                            2.      THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARAT
                                                    PETROLEUM    CORPORATION         LTD. BHARAT
                                                    BHAWAN, 4 AND 6, CURRIMBHOY ROAD,
                                                    BALLARD ESTATE, P.B. NO.-688 (MAHARASHTRA)

                                            3.      TERRITORY MANAGER,       (RETAIL) BHARAT
                                                    PETROLEUM     CORPORATION     LTD.  (BPCL)
                                                    MANGLIYA, DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                                                    (BY SHRI DILIP KSHIRSAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT BPCL
                                                    )

                                                  T h is petition coming on for orders     this day, the court passed the
                                            following:
                                                                                ORDER

Counsel for respondents prays for dismissal of the petition in view of the order passed by co-ordinate bench at Principal Bench in WP No.19346/2017 order dated 10/3/2022 and connected petitions, Petitioners are Petrol Pump Dealers at various locations. They have challenged the constitutional validity of the amended provisions contained in clauses 1.5 (x), 5.1.2, 5.1.4(b), 5.1.16 and 5.1.18 as contained in Marketing Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2022.04.28 17:15:44 IST

Disciplines Guidelines.

It appears that similar writ petitions were filed in different High Courts in large numbers.

While considering the Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2206/2017 and other connected transfer petitions, Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.11.2017 since was of the view that instead of allowing the transfer petitions, it was expedient to direct one of the High Courts to decide the lis of similar nature first, Delhi High court was requested to decide W.P.(C)No.10334 of 2017. Said Writ Petition was decided and allowed in favour of the petitioners turning down the impugned amendments as aforesaid. The judgment passed by learned Single Judge has been subject matter of LPA24/2021 and CM Appl.1843/2021 and other connected LPS heard on 24.11.2021 by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the judgment has been delivered on 10.01.2022. The relevant part of the judgment necessary for disposal of this petition is quoted below :-

85. We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge that this is a matter which is best left to the discretion of the ROs Manager, who, we are sanguine, would be best suited to decide to whom the facility is to be extended. To this extent, the reading down of Clause 5.1.14 (b) of the MDG- 2017, by the learned Single Judge, is upheld.

86. As a cumulative effective of aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby uphold the amendments to MDG-2012, incorporated on 03.10.2017, except to the limited extent as mentioned in paragraph 85, hereinabove and set aside the impugned judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.10334/2017, W.P.(C)No.10746/2017 and W.P.(C)No.11246/2017, dated 18.03.2020.

In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of law, this Court has no reason to disagree with the same. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed to the aforesaid extent.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE VM

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2022.04.28 17:15:44 IST