M/S Vishal Automobiles Thr. vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1789 MP

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                   BENCH AT GWALIOR
                          W.P. No.3816/2018
(M./s Vishal Automobiles and others Vs. Union of India and others)
                                   (1)

Gwalior, dated : 08.02.2022

         Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the

petitioners.

         Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar, learned Assistant Solicitor

General for the respondent No.1/Union of India.

Shri Harish Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents No.2

and 5.

Shri Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents

No.3 and 7.

Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R.S.

Dhakad, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 6.

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 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No.3816/2018 (M./s Vishal Automobiles and others Vs. Union of India and others)

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.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid

RASHID KHAN 2022.02.09 17:34:05 +05'30'