The Supreme Court has clarified that a party's right to prefer appeal doesn't include preference to present the appeal before a forum that cease to exist.
The Division-Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath was adjudicating upon an appeal filed by Division Office of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. wherein the High Court judgement has been assailed.
In the said impugned judgement, the Court directed that the appeal preferred by M/S. Bharat Pradhan Filling Center to be decided by Dispute Resolution Panel within a month failing which the it had to appear in person before the Court on the next date.
Background of the Case
M/S. Bharat Pradhan Filling Center had preferred a writ petition before the High Court questioning the validity of an order whereby, its dealership was terminated while giving an option to challenge the termination order by way of an appeal within 30 days along with fees in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
It was opined by the Court that the impugned order requiring the Filling Centre to pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-was not sustainable. Hence, it directed that if the appeal was preferred within 10 days, the Appellate Authority would consider the same without insisting upon pre-deposit as per the amended Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012.
Since the appeal remained pending, the respondent filed the aforesaid Contempt Application. In the impugned order, as per the appellant , the High Court passed the perverse directions even after taking note of the fact that the procedure for hearing of the appeals had changed under the new guidelines.
The High Court while disposing the writ took note of the admitted fact that during the pendency of appeal, the appellate forum had changed in view of the amendments in the guidelines; and the Dispute Resolution Forum, as provided earlier, was not in existence.
Taking note of the fact that there was no challenge to the amended guidelines, which provide that the Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be the Appellate Authority, the High Court found no ground to issue mandamus so as to place the appeal filed by the present respondent before the Dispute Resolution Forum.
The High Court also provided for expeditious proceedings by the Appellate Authority considering the respondent's submission that it would be giving up the claim to place the appeal before the erstwhile forum and agreed for disposal of the appeal as per the amended guidelines.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Court while throwing light on the fact that the Appellate Authority indeed examined the appeal and heard the parties on December 16, 2021, stated:
"In view of the subsequent events above-mentioned, it is but clear that the present respondent has given up its insistence for decision of the appeal by way of erstwhile mechanism, and rightly so because, even if the respondent (writ petitioner) had the right of consideration of appeal, it had no corresponding right to insist for consideration of the appeal by a forum that was no longer in existence."
The Court thus observed that the impugned order which was even otherwise questionable for being not in conformity with law, has lost its relevance and even the contempt proceedings in the High Court in Contempt Application are rendered redundant.
Therefore, the Court allowed he appeal and set aside the impugned order, closing the contempt proceedings.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
