Madras High Court
V.Srinivasan vs Union Of India on 22 August, 2023
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2015
V.Srinivasan,
President,
Cooking Gas Distribution Welfare Association,
29/311, Main Road, Ettayapuram,
Tuticorin District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
2.The Chairman,
The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board,
New Delhi.
3.The Executive Director,
Tamil Nadu State Office,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
No.1/39. Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungampakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
4. The Regional LPG Manager,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
No.1, Renganathan Garden Off 11th Main Road,
Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040.
5.The Chief Regional Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Petro Bhavanam, 3rd Floor,
No.47, TTK Road, Alwarpettai,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records of the respondents Marketing Discipline Guidelines
2014 Clauses 2.1.2, 2.2.1, 2.1.10, 2.3.6, 2.3.10, 2.3.15 and its consequent
notification No.A.IMP 2013-2014 dated 21.09.2013 published in the
Dinakaran Tamil News Paper, Salem Edition and quash the same and
direct the respondents to consider the Petitioners representation dated
10.01.2015 for relaxing the penalties to the irregularities viz., electrical
error in uploading Aadhar numbers of the consumers, underweight
cylinder, delay in delivery, to give proper opportunity to maintain
Uniform, First Aid Kit, Housekeeping, etc and to review the mass
transfer of consumers from existing distributors and to study the actual
requirement, potentiality, utility of LPG cooking gas throughout India by
scientific method and made periodic systematic appointment of new
distributors at par with population ground and actual requirement.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayarajan,
Senior Panel Counsel for R1.
Mr.V.Karthikeyan,
For Mr.K.Anand K.Ganesan for R2
Mr.K.Muralieedharan for R3.
Mr.S.Nateshraja for R4.
Mr.M.Sridhar for R5.
ORDER
None appears for the writ petitioner. The matter was listed on
21.08.2023 and there was no representation for the petitioner on
21.08.2023 also.
2.I went through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition. I also heard the learned standing counsel for the oil
companies and also the learned standing counsel for Union of India and
the second respondent.
3.The writ petitioner was appointed as LPG distributor by Indian
Oil Corporation Limited in the year 2009. Feeling aggrieved by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
impugned guidelines issued in the year 2014 which empowered the oil
company to transfer the consumers from one distributor to another
distributor, the present writ petition came to be filed.
4.The learned sanding counsel for the oil companies fairly bring it
to my notice that when a circular in pari materia issued by Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited on 13.03.2018 was put to challenge in
W.P.No.8753 of 2018, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court was pleased to allow the same. Challenging the decision of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered on 30.09.2019, the Oil companies
have filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is said to be pending
and it is due to be listed for final hearing shortly. Be that as it may, the
Hon'ble Division Bench of the Kerala High Court repelled the challenge.
One such order dated 15.09.2022 was passed in W.P.(C)No.26014 of
2019. In paragraph No.2, the issue had been framed in the following
terms:-
“2. The issue with respect to the transfer of consumers
from one distributor to another was considered by this Court in
several writ petitions filed by the distributors and had held that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
the Oil Marketing Corporations have got power and authority to
port the consumers from one distributor to another.”
5.Paragraph No.35 of the said order reads as follows:-
“35. However, we are of the considered opinion that the
transfer of a consumer from one distributor and the consequences
arising therefrom to the distributor is already settled by this Court
in the judgments referred to above and therefore, it has no locus
standi or any right to get itself impleaded in the writ petition in
question,opposing the reliefs sought for by a consumer to
implement the guidelines and the orders issued by the
Government of India and the Oil Marketing Corporations.
Therefore, I.A. No. 1 of 2022 seeking impleadment will stand
dismissed.”
6.When the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.1963 of 2018 for
forbearing the oil company from compelling him to transfer his LPG
consumers to any new / other distributors, the Hon'ble Division Bench
vide order 13.03.2018 dismissed the same. Paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17 and
18 of the said order read as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
“15. It is settled position of law that the policy decision
can be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness or mala fide
or oblique motive and the petitioner admittedly did not make
any such allegations or averments in the affidavit filed in
support of this writ petition. A perusal of the distributorship
Clauses in the distributorship agreement, which has been
extracted in the counter affidavit of the present writ petition
would disclose that the second respondent Corporation is
having every right to transfer the consumers from one agency to
another agency and it was also pointed out that the writ
petitioner himself was the beneficiary of the said benevolence
offered by the second respondent and as such, it is not open to
him to make a complaint as to the said policy decision.
16. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that he is
developed infrastructure by spending huge money and on
account of the transfer of consumers from his agency to some
other agency, he is put to financial hardship, difficulty, and the
remedy open to him is to invoke the arbitration Clause 37 of the
Distributorship agreement dated 18.03.2009.
17. The petitioner fails to make out any tenable or legal
ground to his challenge made to the impugned circular.
18. In the considered opinion of the Court, the impugned
circular issued by the second respondent, is having the object of
benefiting the consumers by accommodating there from one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
agency to another agency and it is also taken in terms of the
agreement as well as the policy decision formulated by the
Government and therefore, in the absence of any arbitrariness
or mala fide, it cannot be put to challenge.”
Even in though the said writ petition, the impugned guidelines were not
put to challenge, implicitly they have been upheld.
7.In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and the decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Kerala High Court, I do not find any ground to interfere and the
writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.08.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.1247 of 2015
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
