M/S Vinayak Fules vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 6391 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. 3511 of 2018

                                                    Between:-
                                            1.      M/S VINAYAK FULES THROUGH ITS PROP. VINAY
                                                    RAJORIA S/O OMPRAKASH JI RAJORIA R/O
                                                    SITAMAU (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            2.      PROPRIETOR BINDU RAJORIA M/S SHRINATH
                                                    FULES SITAMAU, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                .....PETITIONERS
                                                    (BY SHRI ABHISHEK TUGNAWAT, ADVOCATE)

                                                    AND

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

                                            2.      MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARAT PETROLEUM
                                                    CORPORATION    LTD. 3079/3,SADIQ NAGAR, JB
                                                    TITO MARG, NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                                            3.      TERRITORY MANAGER BHARAT PETROLEUM
                                                    CORPORATION   LTD. MANGLIYA, (MADHYA
                                                    PRADESH)

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

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

Counsel for respondents prays for 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 Disciplines Guidelines.

It appears that similar writ petitions were filed in different High Courts in large Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2022.04.28 17:16:47 IST

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 stand dismissed to the aforesaid extent.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE VM

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2022.04.28 17:16:47 IST