Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Suveedha Through Sudhir Chand Airen vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 11 January, 2018
-1-
Writ Petition No.22847/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Writ Petition No.22847/2017 (O)
(M/s. Suveedha & others Vs. Union of India & Others)
Indore, dt. 11/01/2018
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned senior counsel with Shri M. S.
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sandeep R. Kochatta, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 5.
Shri Dilip Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 6.
The petitioner before this Court are dealers of petroleum products and they are aggrieved by the amendment in the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 which came into force w.e.f. 02/10/2017.
The amendment provides for penalties on dealers pertaining to short delivery of products, automated system of ROs, toilet facilities, observations of statutory and other regulations regarding wages and payment of wages.
Various writ petitions have been filed all over the country and the matter has travelled up to the Apex Court. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has preferred a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Transfer Petition (C) No.2206 of 2017 and the Delhi High Court has been requested to decide the writ Petition (C) No.10334 of 2017 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months. It has also been directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that -2- Writ Petition No.22847/2017 other High Courts may proceed with the matter after the Delhi High decide the same.
It is noteworthy to mention that in some of the cases interim relief have been granted on various grounds and in some of the cases interim relief have not been granted. Orissa High Court has later on granted an interim order by an order dated 01/12/2017 in Writ Petition (C) No.24410 of 2017 (Petroleum Dealers Association, Odisha Vs. The Union of India & Others) and the matter has again travelled before the apex Court and the apex Court has held that interim orders passed by the High Court(s) will be open to be reconsidered by the High Courts on further order being passed by Delhi High Court, as directed earlier, meaning thereby, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not vacated the interim order passed by the Orissa High Court.
Shri Piyush Mathur, learned senior counsel along with Shri M.S. Dwivedi has drawn the attention of this Court towards Division Bench order passed by the Calcutta High Court on 20/12/2017 in M.A.T.No.2074 of 2017 and the same reads as under:-
"The members of the petitioner company are Dealers in petroleum products. The respondent oil companies framed the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2012 which were to be followed by the dealers. In 2017 amendment was made to the said guidelines w.e.f. 2nd October, 2017, inter alia, providing for penalties on dealers pertaining to short delivery of products, automated system of ROs, toilet facilities, observations of statutory and other regulations regarding wages and payment of wages.
Being aggrieved by such amendment, various parties challenged the same before various High Courts by way of writ petitions. One of the oil companies approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a transfer petition contending that since the same issue was pending before various High Courts, there was likelihood of conflict of decisions and hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court should withdraw all the writ petitions and hear out the same itself. By an order -3- Writ Petition No.22847/2017 dated 27th November, 2017 the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed as follows:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is stated that the transfer petitions have been filed on the ground that on the same issue several petitions are pending in different High Courts.
We are of the view that instead of allowing transfer, it will be in the interest of justice that one High Court first decides the matter. Accordingly, we request the Delhi High Court to decide W.P. (C) No. 10334 of 2017 pending before it expeditiously and preferably within three months from today.
Other High Courts may proceed with the matters after the Delhi High Court decides the same.
It will be open to any affected parties to intervene before the Delhi High Court.
The transfer petitions are, accordingly, disposed of."
The present appellants approached the learned Single Judge of this High court by filing WP no. 29131(w) of 2017 challenging the amendment to the said guidelines. The learned Single Judge refused to pass any interim order in view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Being aggrieved the appellants are before us by way of the present appeal.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants presses for an interim protective order. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the main matter may not be heard and disposed of by other High courts till the Delhi High Court decides the matter. There is no impediment to passing an interim order.
Mr. Chaudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent oil companies disputes such submission and submits that even an interim order may not be passed in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction. Mr. Chaudhury, further questions the maintainability of the writ application.
It is pertinent to note that priorto the Hon'ble Supreme Court passing the order dated 27th November, 2017, various High Courts including the Madras High Court, Jammu & Kashmir High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court as also our High Court passed interim protective orders in favour of the writ petitioners on identical writ applications. Even after the Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 27th November, 2017, the High Court at Cuttak and the Punjab & Haryana -4- Writ Petition No.22847/2017 High Court have passed interim orders and have adjourned hearing of the main writ application sine die with liberty to the parties to mention for listing after disposal of the writ application pending before the Delhi High.
On 15th December, 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order which reads as follows:-
"Since this Court has already requested the Delhi High Court to decide the issue expeditiously preferably within three months, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the cases at this at this stage in the petitioner(s) against an interim order.
We make it clear that the interim order passed by the High Court (s) will be open to be reconsidered by the High Courts on further order being passed by Delhi High th Court, in pursuance of order of this Court dated 27 November, 2017."
As we read the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there does not appear to be any direction on the High Courts not to pass any interim order. What is observed is that the other High Courts may proceed with the "matter" after the Delhi High Court decides the same. Our understanding is that this means that the other High courts have been directed not to hear out and dispose of the main writ application.
th It is pertinent to note that while passing the order dated 27 November, 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not stay the operation of the interim orders passed by the other High Courts. The th Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 15 December, 2017, in our view, supports our understanding of the earlier order dated 27th November, 2017.
In our view, it would be unfair if some of the parties are allowed to enjoy interim protection just because they approached the High Courts prior to passing of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated th 27 November, 2017 whereas other parties identically situate shall be denied such interim protection only because they have approached the High Court after the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 27th November, 2017. It would be grossly unfair to allow the writ petitioners to be subjected to coercive measures in terms of the amendments to the 2012 guidelines if finally it is held that such amendments are legally not tenable and are liable to be set aside.
We keep the question of maintainability of the writ petition open to be decided at the final hearing of the writ application.
Let affidavits be exchanged. Affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks after the X-Mas vacation. Reply, if any, be filed within a fortnight thereafter. List the matter after completion of affidavits.
-5- Writ Petition No.22847/2017Hence we direct that for a period of seven weeks after the Xmas vacation no coercive measure shall be taken by the respondents against the writ petitioners/appellants on the basis of the 2017 amendment to the 2012 guidelines."
His prayer is that interim protection may be granted to the present petitioners also in light of the Division Bench order.
Learned counsel appearing for the Oil Companies have opposed the prayer and their contention is that on account of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court cannot pass any order in the matter.
This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and is of the opinion that the petitioners are certainly entitled for interim protection as has been granted by various High Courts.
Resultantly, the order passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court shall be applicable mutatis-mutandis in the present case also. However, hearing of the case is deferred till the matter is decided by Delhi High Court as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Parties to inform the final outcome of the petition, which is pending before the Delhi High Court.
List the matter on 01/05/2018.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej Tej Prakash Vyas 2018.01.12 12:32:15 -08'00'