M/S Tirupati Indian Oil Thr vs Union Of India Thr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3411 MP

                                      1
           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                    WP No. 12206 of 2018
        (M/S TIRUPATI INDIAN OIL THR AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA THR AND OTHERS)

Gwalior, Dated : 10-03-2022
      Shri Yogesh Singhal, 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 respondent No.2. Shri K.N.Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Ayushi Pohpli, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

Shri Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and 7. 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), 5.1.18 and 8.3 (ix) 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 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 :-

"œ85. 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."Â​ 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.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2022.03.11 13:53:41 +05'30'