Kerala High Court
Lissy Davis vs Union Of India on 12 December, 2024
1
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9331 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 AMEEN GAS AGENCIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
USMAN M, P O ROAD, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD-670121.
2 M/S.ICEEPEE GAS AGENCIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, BHRAMADATHAN I.M,
SHOP NO.25 AND 26, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,
KALAMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD-679513.
3 KOTTARATH ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
NANDAKUMAR K., P O KANJANY, THRISSUR-680612.
4 M/S.FATHIMA JUSHAINI INDANE SERVICES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, JUNSHAD P, PUTHOOR ROAD,
ALANALLUR(P O), MANNARAKKAD, PALAKKAD-678601.
5 MALIYAKKAL ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MOHAMMED HUSSAIN M.K,
TALIKULAM P O, THRISSUR, PIN-680569.
6 ECSTA INDANE DISTRIBUTORS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR HANEEFA C.M,
558/1 MAIN ROAD, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680306.
7 AYUSHA GAS SERVICES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR USHA MADHUSOODHAN,
558/1 MAIN ROAD, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680306.
8 M/S. SANTHOSH GAS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, PHILOMEENA WILLIAMS,
COMPANY PADI STOP, ANNAPPARA, THRISSUR-680010.
9 M/S. KUMAR GAS AGENCY
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, PUSHKARAN S,
2
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
LEKSHMY BUILDINGS, METTUPALAYAM, THATTAMANGALAM,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678102.
10 M/S.SILVER INDANE SERVICES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHALY K U,
NALANDA BUILDING, BEHIND BUS STAND, SHORNUR-679121.
11 M/S. SREE NARAYANA INDANE SERVICES
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, NARAYANAN A, ALAVI
COMPLEX, MELAPATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679306.
12 M/S. PANAKKAL GAS AGENCY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JAISON P.S, LEWA
COMPLEX, TOWN HALL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680503.
13 M/S. SAINIK GAS SERVICE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, VISWANATH K N, UNITED
SHOPPING COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004.
14 M/S. KOLATHINGAL INDANE SERVICES
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DHANYA JOSE,
IX/310-B, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR-680507.
15 M/S. CHIRAMMAL GAS AGENCIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, PAUL C.A, 4/96,
PERINJANAM TRADE CENTRE, PERINJANAM P O, THRISSUR-
680686.
16 M/S. ASHA GAS AGENCIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PAUL JEEVAN JOB,
XXVIII/690 A YMCA ROAD, CHALAKUDY-680307.
17 M/S. TRUE LIGHT INDANE SERVICES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR LISSY DAVIS, ANATHDOM
CHURCH COMPLEX, KODAKARA ROAD, ALOOR, THRISSUR-6806834.
18 M/S. SREE VINAYAKA INDANE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S RAJITHA, IV/573-A, NORTH
NADA, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR-680664.
19 M/S. THICHEMPULLY GAS AGENCIES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, USHA U.A, OTTUPARA,
THRISSUR-680590.
3
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
BY ADVS.
SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, 110001.
2 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
MARKETING DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF AREA MANAGER,
INDANE AREA OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, P.M.K. ROWERS, WAYANAD
ROAD, CIVIL STATION P O, KOZHIKODE-673020.
3 THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER,
INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, IIND
FLOOR, P.M.K. TOWERS, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION P O,
KOZHIKODE-673020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,
SMT.RAMOLA NAYANPALLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).9360/2020, 9383/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 12.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9360 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 AJITH E., AGED 47 YEARS,
M/S. A AND D INDANE SERVICES, THUMBENI,
SREEKANDAPURAM P O, KANNUR-670631.
2 SRIKANTH K., PROPRIETOR, KADIRUR INDANE SERVICES,
VETTUMMAL, KADIRUR, KANNUR-670642.
3 KANNEEN K., PROPRIETOR, GEMINI GAS AND APPLIANCES,
13/6, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, THALASSERY,
KANNUR-670104.
4 JAYAKRISHNAN M., PROPRIETOR, HIGH STAR INDANE SERVICES,
P O VARAM, KANNUR, KERALA-670594.
5 SEELI P P., PROPRIETOR, HAPPY INDANE SERVICES,
DOOR NO. CP III/422A, KANHIRODE, KANNUR-670592.
6 MUHAMMED NOUFAL C K., PROPRIETOR, VALLOLA INDANE,
MP XII-571A, MAYYIL, KANNUR-670602.
7 COL C J ANTONY (RETD).,
PROPRIETOR, M/S. COLONEL'S INDANE SERVICES,
DOOR NO.31/1, WARD NO.4, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670702.
8 K.K. DINESH., PROPRIETOR, SREE MUTHAPPAN GAS,
VP XII/211C/211D, PATHRIYAD, KANNUR-670741.
9 T.P. RAMACHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. PADMALAYA INDANE
SERVICES, CHALA P.O, THOTTADA, KANNUR-670007.
10 SAJUNATH K.S, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KELAKAM INDANE,
KP XII-380-381, KELAKAM, KANNUR-670674.
5
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
11 SAAJAN ALINKEEL, PROPRIETOR, M/S. ALINKEEL GAS AGENCIES,
MANGAD P O, KALLIASSERY, KANNUR-670562.
12 SUJATHA V K., PROPRIETOR, M/S. MAHE GAS AGENCIES,
VIA/142A, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT L.P. SCHOOL, MAHE,
PONDICHERRY-673311.
BY ADVS.
SHASHANK DEVAN
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001
2 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
MARKETING DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF AREA MANAGER,
INDANE AREA OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, P.M.K. TOWERS, WAYANAD
ROAD, CIVIL STATION P O, KOZHIKODE-673020.
3 THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER,
INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, IIND
FLOOR, P.M.K. TOWERS, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION P O,
KOZHIKODE-673020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,
SMT.RAMOLA NAYANPALLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).9331/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
12.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9383 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
M/S.ASWATHY GAS AGENCIES, PAYYANNUR, A PARTNERSHIP
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING PARTNER, P. SAJITHA, S/O.
P.V. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT
UPASANA P.O. EDAT, 670 327, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHEF LPG MANGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, KERALA STATE OFFICE,
PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O.,
COCHIN-682 036.
2 THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD 2ND FLOOR, PMK TOWER,
CIVIL STATION, P.O. WYNAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.
3 SMT.B. CHITHRA, MANAGER, LPG (SALES) INDANE AREA OFFICE,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, 2ND FLOOR PMK TOWER,
CIVIL STATION, P.O WYNAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,
7
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
SMT.RAMOLA NAYANPALLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).9331/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
12.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
8
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 26790 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
S.REJITHA, AGED 53 YEARS,
W/O. A REGHUNATHAN, THAZHTHU VEETIL HOUSE,
KALEESWARY LANE, SOUTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR,
PIN - 680 664.
BY ADVS.
ADARSH KUMAR
K.M.ANEESH
K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)
BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM
DILEEP CHANDRAN
SHASHANK DEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL LPG HEAD,
KOZHIKODE AREA OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, IIND FLOOR,
P.M.K TOWERS, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673 020.
3 THE DIVISIONAL LPG HEAD,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, KOZHIKODE
AREA OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, P.M.K TOWERS,
WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673 020.
9
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
4 THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, KOZHIKODE AREA OFFICE,
IIND FLOOR, P.M.K TOWERS, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION
P.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673 020.
BY ADVS.
J.RAMKUMAR
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,
SMT.RAMOLA NAYANPALLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).9331/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
12.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
10
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30986 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
M/S.ASWATHY GAS AGENCIES, PAYYANNUR,
A PARTNERSHIP REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
P.SAJITH, S/O. P.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS,
BUSINESS, RESIDING AT UPASANA, P.O.EDAT, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670327.
BY ADV R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF
LPG MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY
NAGAR.P.O., COCHIN, PIN - 682036.
2 THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER,
INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD,
2ND FLOOR, PMK TOWER, CIVIL STATION.P.O.,
WYNAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020.
ADDL.R3 THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF GST COUNCIL,5TH FLOOR,
TOWER II, JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING, JANPATH ROAD,
CONNAUGHT PALACE, NEW DELHI-110001.
(ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
19/10/2023 IN I.A.NO.01/2023 IN WPC 30986/2023)
BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
11
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
ALFRED LIONEL WINSTON M
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,
SMT.RAMOLA NAYANPALLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).9331/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
12.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
12
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 22290 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LISSY DAVIS, AGED 68 YEARS,
W/O. LATE P V DAVIS, POKKATH HOUSE,
KODUNGALOOR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680121.
BY ADVS.
ADARSH KUMAR
K.M.ANEESH
SHASHANK DEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001.
2 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL LPG HEAD, KOZHIKODE AREA
OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, P.M.K. TOWERS, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL
STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020.
3 THE DIVISIONAL LPG HEAD,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, KOZHIKODE AREA OFFICE,
IIND FLOOR, P.M.K. TOWERS, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION
P.O., KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020.
BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,
BY SMT.RAMOLA NAYANPALLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).9331/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
12.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
13
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 22392 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MANI C.V., AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. VASU C.V., AGED 50 YEARS, CHEEKODEN HOUSE,
NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680007.
BY ADVS.
ADARSH KUMAR
K.M.ANEESH
SHASHANK DEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRYOFPETROLEUMANDNATURALGAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001.
2 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL LPG HEAD, KOZHIKODE AREA
OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, P.M.K. TOWERS, WAYANAD ROAD,
CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020.
3 THE DIVISIONAL LPG HEAD,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, KOZHIKODE AREA OFFICE,
IIND FLOOR, P.M.K. TOWERS, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION
P.O., KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020.
BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
14
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR,
SMT.RAMOLA NAYANPALLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).9331/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
12.12.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
15
W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.9331/2020, 9360/2020, 9383/2020, 26790/2021, 30986/2023, 22290/2024 and 22392/2024] These writ petitions are filed by various LPG distributors appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short, the "respondent Corporation"), challenging the orders of penalty imposed on them as also seeking a declaration that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "MDG") on the basis of which penalty was imposed as above, is not having any force of law and as beyond the purview of the agreements entered into with the respondent Corporation.
2. The short facts as culled out from W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 are as under:
The petitioners were engaged by the respondent Corporation as their distributors to carry out LPG distribution in specified areas pursuant to Ext.P1 series agreements. By Ext.P2 series communications, various monetary penalties have been imposed on the petitioners by the respondent Corporation. The 16 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 afore orders have been issued pursuant to the show cause notices issued by the respondent Corporation (Ext.P4 series) to which detailed replies have been filed by the petitioners (Ext.P5 series). It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition seeking the reliefs as noticed above.
3. The factual situation and contentions raised by the petitioners in the connected writ petitions are also more or less the same.
4. I have heard Sri.Adarsh Kumar and Sri.R.Surendran, the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Smt.Ramola Nayanpally for the respondent Corporation.
5. Sri.Adarsh Kumar, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners would contend that:
i. The penalties imposed in the instant cases were on account of the violation of Chapter IV of the MDG. He points out Clause 4.2(viii) and contends that a show 17 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 cause notice for violation of Chapter IV has to be issued within 30 days of the completion of the preceding quarter. In the case at hand, such notices have been issued beyond the period prescribed, and hence, the proceedings leading to the levy of monetary penalty are without any justification.
ii. He relies on Clause 4.2(x) and contends that a "speaking order" ought to have been issued if the reply submitted to the show cause notices were not acceptable. However, no such speaking orders have been issued, in these cases.
iii. He points out that the respondent Corporation has adopted a "pick and choose" approach among the distributors, and hence, the proceedings cannot be sustained.
6. Sri.Surendran, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners would contend that:
18W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 i. The MDG is not having any legal authority and hence, the respondent Corporation cannot rely on the same and impose penalty.
ii. The imposition of penalty under the MDG with reference to the average commission amount is without any justification and illegal since the commission earned is on the performed part, and penalty is levied on the non-performance. iii. More than 95% of active customers have double cylinders against their name and therefore, there is no necessity to supply refill cylinders within 2 to 7 days.
iv. With reference to Clause 4.1, providing for the pattern of rating, it is contended that there is ambiguity. According to him, if 85% of delivery is affected in 2 days and the remaining 15% is done after 8 days, then a case would fall under both "Excellent" and "Poor".
19W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
7. I have considered the rival submissions and the connected records.
8. The following questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions:
i. Is the respondent Corporation entitled to impose monetary penalty with reference to the provisions of MDG?
ii. Is the time limit prescribed under Clause 4.2(viii), mandatory in nature?
iii. Are the impugned orders in tune with the provisions of Clause 4.2(x) of MDG?
iv. Is the imposition of penalty under Clause 4.2, with reference to average commission, illegal?
v. Is there any ambiguity with reference to the rating prescribed under Clause 4.1 of MDG?
9. As regards the first point to be considered, these writ petitions have been filed essentially relying upon Ext.P7 judgment (produced in W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020) of a learned 20 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by which certain Clauses of the MDG entitling levy of monetary penalty were struck down. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent Corporation, the afore judgment of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of challenge at the instance of the respondent Corporation. By a judgment dated 10.01.2022, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has found that such monetary penalty can be imposed under the MDG, and hence the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the respondent Corporation is entitled to impose monetary penalty with reference to the provisions of the MDG, on the petitioners herein.
10. The second question arising for consideration is with reference to Clause 4.2(viii) of the MDG. The afore clause reads as under:
"viii. In respect of all established cases of not meeting the TDT norms as mentioned above at Clause No.4.2 (v) & 21 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
(vi), a show cause notice will be issued by the concerned Area Manager(AM)/Territory Manager(TM)/Regional Manager (RM) to the Distributor, within 30 days from the completion of preceding quarter. The show cause notice should be issued along with the relevant report(s) from the transparency portal which forms the basis of the notice."
It is true that the afore clause visualizes the issue of a show cause notice within the time limit prescribed therein - within 30 days from completion of the preceding quarter - with respect to violation of the TDT norms (Targeted Delivery Time) under Chapter IV of MDG. The question is as to whether the afore time limit is "mandatory" or "directory" in nature.
11. The Privy Council in Montreal Street Railway Company v. Normandin [(1917) LR, AC 170] has held as under:
"The question whether provisions in a statute are directory or imperative has very frequently arisen in this country, but it has been said that no general rule can be laid down, and that in every case the object of the statute must be looked at .... When the provisions of a statute relate to the 22 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them, though punishable, not affecting the validity of the acts done."
The judgment of the Apex Court in P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M Sahir and others [(2003) 8 SCC 498] has also held as under:
"48. Furthermore, even if the statute specifies a time for publication of the electoral roll, the same by itself could not have been held to be mandatory. Such a provision would be directory in nature. It is a well-settled principle of law that where a statute functionary is asked to perform a statutory duty within the time prescribed therefor, the same would be directory and not mandatory. (See Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha v. District Magistrate of Monghyr, Nomina Chowdhury v. State of W.B. and Garbari Union Coop. Agricultural Credit Society Ltd. v. Swapan Kumar Jana)."
The question raised by the petitioner is to be considered with reference to the principles laid down in the above precedents. 23 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
12. The fact that the proceedings are initiated under MDG is not in dispute. A detailed procedure is prescribed under the MDG, for initiation of appropriate actions against the distributers. The initiating authority has to prima facie satisfy himself as to the requirement for taking steps under the relevant chapter of the MDG. This Court has already taken the view that decisions being arrived at by the respondent Corporation are institutional, in the judgment reported as Baby Girija v. Indian Oil Corporation [2024 KHC OnLine 7136]. Therefore, the provisions of Clause 4.2 cannot be taken to be mandatory in nature, since for arriving at a decision to proceed in accordance with Clause 4.2(viii), the procedure prescribed thereunder has to be complied with. Therefore, the stipulation of the period of 30 days for initiation of the notice can only be reckoned as "directory" in nature. Furthermore, I notice that the Delhi High Court, in the judgment referred to earlier, had found that the MDG has legal backing, especially when the intention behind the 24 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 introduction of the MDG was laudable. Therefore, the provisions of Clause 4.2(viii) can only be directory in nature.
13. The third question arising for consideration is with reference to the interpretation of Clause 4.2(x) of the MDG which reads as under:
"(x). Upon receipt of the reply to the show cause notice, the concerned Area Manager/Territory Manager/Regional Manager will review the charges leveled in the show cause notice and the reply received and then pass a speaking order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the reply. The speaking order issued by M/TM/RM shall indicate complete details of the non-compliance to the TDT norms , the reply of the Distributor, detailed reasons as to why the reply is not acceptable and the penal action attracted. The speaking order will also clearly specify a time period of 30 days for depositing the amount of fine/quantum of irregularity, if applicable to the concerned OMC. However, in cases where authority for imposition of action rests with higher offices [detailed below in Para 4.3(i)], the approval for taking action under MDG shall be taken prior to the issuance of above mentioned speaking order."
A reading of the afore clause shows that the concerned officer is required to review the charges leveled in the show cause 25 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 notice with reference to the reply received from the distributor and then pass a "speaking order." It is further provided that such "speaking order" is to indicate the "detailed reasons", as to why the reply filed is not acceptable and why the penal action is attracted.
14. In my opinion, such requirement to issue a "speaking order" is a basic tenet of administrative law. The allegations raised in the show cause notices are essentially with reference to the violation of the TDT norms under Chapter IV. When the MDG provides the dealer an opportunity to show cause against proposed action, it is imperative on the part of the officer concerned to consider the contentions raised/explanations offered and then arrive at a considered decision. As already found, by virtue of the judgment by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the respondent Corporation is having every power and authority to act under the provisions of MDG. When that be so, it goes without saying that the directives in the MDG that a speaking order 26 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 is required to be issued is also an essential pre-requisite for imposing a monetary penalty. In the case at hand, it is seen that Ext.P2 series [W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020) are the orders imposing the monetary penalty. A perusal of these orders would show that apart from the name of the distributor, the quarter concerned, the figures with respect to the alleged violation/commission/penalty, all other portions are one and the same. In other words, Ext.P2 series are stereotyped orders wherein, there are no reasons given for imposing the penalty. In fact, the third paragraph of every such order reads as under:
"We have received your letter dated 19.02.2020, giving explanation / reason for not achieving the TDT rating. On going through your reply carefully, it is observed that your explanation is not satisfactory and convincing. Through various mails/meetings, you were advised to increase the delivery infrastructure to meet the requirement. It is pertinent to mention here that there was absolutely no issue at the BPs and uninterrupted supplies were made during this Qtr-4/2019. Also the current Qtr-1/2020, your TDT rating is "Below Average".
Thus, the fact that a show cause notice was issued to which a 27 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 reply offering an explanation/reason for not achieving the TDT rating was provided by the distributor is admitted. However, apart from stating that the explanation so offered is not "satisfactory and convincing", no other consideration is seen made in the impugned orders. Why the explanation/objection could not be accepted is not stated anywhere. Therefore, in my opinion, there is total non-application of mind in the cases at hand.
15. In State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568], the Apex Court held as under:
"7. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar [(2003) 11 SCC 519 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 212] .)
8. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR 742 : (1971) 1 All ER 1148 (CA)] observed (All ER p. 1154h): 'The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.' In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)] it was observed:
'Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of 28 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The 'inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." The above principles apply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Therefore, the impugned orders are only to be found as violative of the stipulation prescribed under Clause 4.2(x) of the MDG.
16. In light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders, to the extent of not following the mandate under Clause 4.2(x), need to be set aside. 29 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
17. The fourth issue arising for consideration is with reference to the submissions made by Sri.Surendran, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners, with reference to Clause 4.2 of the MDG. According to him, the penalty prescribed is 20% of AMDC - the commission received, with reference to the performed part as well as the non-performance leading to the imposition of penalty. But, in my opinion, Clause 4.2 (Ext.P8 of W.P(C) No.30986 of 2023) only requires the imposition of a fine of 20% with respect to 20% of AMDC and that only visualizes the right of the petroleum company to levy a fine of 20% of the commission received for the "poor" rating in a quarter. Merely because the commission paid is for the performed part (not attracting penalty) and non-performance (poor performance attracting penalty), it cannot be said that there is any irrationality. Apart from the above, as already noticed, the vires of the MDG have already been upheld by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, and therefore, the afore contention raised cannot be accepted. 30 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537
18. The next contention is with reference to the non- necessity to supply refill cylinders within 2-7 days, since more than 95% of the active customers would have 2 cylinders. This, in my opinion, is only a hypothetical situation. The provisions of Chapter IV are not with reference to a customer having a single cylinder/customer having multiple cylinders. Even with reference to a customer having multiple cylinders, the respondent Corporation can insist that, delivery is to be carried out within a particular period. Therefore, the afore issue only requires to be recorded and rejected.
19. The last contention raised was with reference to irrationality with reference to Clause 4.1. It is contended by Sri.Surendran, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners that a given case may fall both under 85% and 15% and hence, would fall under "excellent" and "poor". Here, it may be noticed that the rating of "excellent" is provided in a situation where "more than 85%" delivery is effected within two days. The 1- star "poor" rating is provided in cases where the delivery in 31 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 excess of 8 days period is "over 15%" of total deliveries. Clause 4.1(iii) provides "1 Star = 15% delivery in > 8 days 'poor'". Therefore, no case can fall under both "excellent" and "poor" category. In such circumstances, the afore contention raised is also to be rejected.
Resultantly, these writ petitions are disposed of as under:
i. It is declared that the respondent Corporation is entitled to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the MDG.
ii. The time limit prescribed under Clause 4.2(viii) is only directory in nature.
iii. The impugned orders are not in tune with the provisions of the MDG, since they are non-speaking orders.
iv. The imposition of penalty under Clause 4.2 with reference to average commission cannot be said to be illegal.32 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 v. There is no ambiguity with reference to the rating prescribed under Clause 4.1 of the MDG.
vi. In light of the above, the impugned orders are set aside, directing the respondent Corporation to proceed afresh, in tune with the afore findings.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE ln 33 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9360/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LPG AGREEMENT DATED 13.01.2016 BETWEEN 1ST PETITIONER'S PARTNERSHIP AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.03.2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 107596/-
TO THE 1ST PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.87784/- TO THE 2ND PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.112118/- TO THE 3RD PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.74102/- TO THE 4TH PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.114528/- TO THE 5TH PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.29736/- TO THE 6TH PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.20504/- TO THE 7TH PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.36587/- TO THE 8TH PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD 34 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.47176/- TO THE 9TH PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.76474/- TO THE 10TH PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(J) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02-03- 2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.128101/- TO THE 11TH PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.03.2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.117630/- TO THE 12TH PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31.01.2020 UPPER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 17.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COP OF THE TDT RATING REPORT CLASSIFYING THE DISTRIBUTORS IN THE KOZHIKODE REGION.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN WP(C) NO.10334/2017.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES-NOVEMBER- 2018.
35W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDATORY LETTER DATED
9.3.2017 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES 2018 FOR LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP. EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27.1.2021 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN LPA 30/2021 AND CM NO 2389/2021(STAY). EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 10.1.2022 PASSED IN LPA 24/2021 & CM APPL.
1843/2021(STAY) BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19.8.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 2& 3 TO DISTRIBUTORS. EXHIBIT R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 29.10.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT 2&3 TO DISTRIBUTORS. EXHIBIT R2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 5.11.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 2&3 TO DISTRIBUTORS. EXHIBIT R2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 8.11.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 2 &3 TO DISTRIBUTORS. 36 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9383/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 15.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.2.2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER FIRM AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 31.1.2020 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.11.2019, ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE 2018 PUBLISHED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA FURNISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER AND 37 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 OTHER DISTRIBUTORS FOR THE 4TH QUARTER OF YEAR 2019.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRIBUTOR REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2019.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRIBUTOR REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2019.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRIBUTOR REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2022 PASSED IN 'LPA 24/2021 & CM APPL. 1843/2021 (STAY) BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 11.04.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 04.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 18.06.2019.
EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE POLICY ON MARKET RETURN OF INDANE LPG CYLINDERS BY DISTRIBUTORS DATED 29.01.2019.
38W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26790/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION LPG AGREEMENT DATED 7-06-2001 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-10-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES NOVEMBER 2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 06-10-2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-03-2020 IN WP(C0 NO. 10334/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-03-2020 IN WP(C) NO. 9360/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-03-2020 IN WP(C) NO. 9331/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-03-2021 IN WP(C) NO. 7544/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7(C) TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 08-09-2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C0 NO. NOS 9331/2020,9360/2020 AND 12028/2021. EXHIBIT P7(D) TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-09-2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C0 NO. 7544/2021.
39W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE
GUIDELINES 2018 FOR LPG DISTRIBUTORS. EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27.01.2021 OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN LPA 30/2021 & CM NO.2389/2021 (STAY). EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2022 PASSED IN LPA 24/2021 & CM APPL.
1843/2021(STAY) BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 24.07.2021. EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 06.09.2021. EXHIBIT R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 11.09.2021. EXHIBIT R2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 24.09.2021. EXHIBIT R2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.08.2021. 40 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30986/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 15-3-2011 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16-1-2015, EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER FIRM AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-5-2003 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31-5-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 17-7-2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28-7-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-8-2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IMPOSING PENALTY.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES 2022 DATED 1-5-2022.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2022, PASSED IN LPA 24/2021 AND CM APPL.
1843/2021(STAY) BY THE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT.41 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22290/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LPG AGREEMENT DATED 02-12-2014 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29-05-2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25-03-2024; ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17-04-2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-03-2020 IN WP© NO. 9360/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-03-2020 IN WP© NO. 9331/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26-11-2021 IN WP(C) 26790/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5(C) A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 08-09-2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NOS. 9331/2020, 9360/2020 AND 12028/2021.
EXHIBIT P5(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28-03-2022 IN WP(C) 26790/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES, MAY- 2022.42 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22392/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LPG AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29-05-2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25-03-2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16-04-2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06-04-2024 ISSUED BY THANKAMMA, AYYAPPATH HOUSE, PATTALAKKUTHU, MANNUTHY TO THE PETITIONER'S ESTABLISHMENT EXHIBIT P5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08-04- 2024 ISSUED BY MADHU K K, KULAKUTTIYIL HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLY TO THE PETITIONER'S ESTABLISHMENT EXHIBIT P5(B) A TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE COMMUNICATION DATED 05-04-2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER (PROPRIETOR OF SOORYA GAS, NADANTHARA) TO K.V. ROBERT, DELIVERY BOY, SOORYA GAS, NADANTHARA EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-03-2020 IN WP© NO. 9360/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-03-2020 IN WP© NO. 9331/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26-11-2021 IN WP(C) 26790/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.43 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 EXHIBIT P6(C) A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 08-09-2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NOS. 9331/2020, 9360/2020 AND 12028/2021.
EXHIBIT P6(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28-03-2022 IN WP(C) 26790/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES, MAY- 2022.44 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9331/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INDANE (LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS) DISTRIBUTORSHIP (DOMESTIC & COMMERCIAL) AGREEMENT DATED 21/11/1985 BETWEEN 1ST PETITIONER'S PARTNERSHIP AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENDED LPG AGREEMENT DATED 24/3/2003 BETWEEN 1ST PETITIONER'S PARTNERSHIP AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF EXTENDED LPG AGREEMENT DATED 13/1/2015 BETWEEN 1ST PETITIONER'S PARTNERSHIP AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (C) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 16/12/2002 BETWEEN 2ND PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (D) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 9/11/1987 BETWEEN 3RD PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENDED LPG AGREEMENT DATED 2/12/2014 BETWEEN 3RD PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (F) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 25/4/2014 BETWEEN 4TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (G) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 02/07/2014 BETWEEN 5TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (H) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 31/1/2011 BETWEEN 6TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT PI (I) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 02/12/2014 BETWEEN 7TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT 45 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 EXHIBIT P1 (J) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 28/10/1996 BETWEEN 8TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1 (K) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENDED LPG AGREEMENT DATED 2/12/2014 BETWEEN 8TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1 (L) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVENT PAGE OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 13/1/2015 BETWEEN 9TH PETITIONER'S PARTNERSHIP AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (M) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 30/06/2015 BETWEEN 10TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1 (N) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 25/01/2002 BETWEEN 11TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1 (O) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENDED LPG AGREEMENT DATED 12/02/2016 BETWEEN 11TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1 (P) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 26/5/1985 BETWEEN 12TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (Q) TRUE COPY OF EXTENDED LPG AGREEMENT DATED 2/12/2014 BETWEEN 12TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (R) TRUE COPY OF EXTENDED LPG AGREEMENT DATED 7/3/2017 BETWEEN 12TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (S) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 23/8/2019 BETWEEN 13TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (T) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 86/6/2015 BETWEEN 14TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (U) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 12/2/1987 BETWEEN 15TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND 46 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (V) TRUE COPY OF EXTENDED LPG AGREEMENT DATED 2/12/2014 BETWEEN 15TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (W) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 25/11/2013 BETWEEN 16TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (X) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LPG AGREEMENT DATED 7/6/2001 BETWEEN THE 18TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 (Y) TRUE COPY OF LPG AGREEMENT DATED 31/3/1988 BETWEEN 19TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (Z) TRUE COPY OF EXTENDED LPG AGREEMENT DATED 9/7/2015 BETWEEN 19TH PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.321608/- TO THE 1ST PETITIONER GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.171738/- TO THE 2ND PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.109470 /- TO THE 3RD PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.78590/- TO THE 4TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (D) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.266497/- TO THE 5TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
47W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 EXHIBIT P2 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS 217235/- TO THE 6TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (F) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 210595/- TO THE 7TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (G) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 280647/- TO THE 8TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (H) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 270845/- TO THE 9TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 (I) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 32857/- TO THE 10TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (J) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 310888/- TO THE 11TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (K) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 74761/- TO THE 12 TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (L) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 140360/- TO THE 13TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (M) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 157533/- TO THE 14 TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT 48 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 EXHIBIT P2 (N) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 255490/- TO THE 15TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (O) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 305384/- TO THE 16TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (P) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 149658/- TO THE 17TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (Q) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 233581/- TO THE 18 TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 (Q)(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 18TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2(R) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02/03/2020 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 71193/- TO THE 19TH PETITIONER'S GAS AGENCY, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES- NOVEMBER 2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH 49 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 11TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(K) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 13TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
50W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020
and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 EXHIBIT P4(L) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 14TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(M) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 17TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P4(N) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31/01/2020, UNDER CHAPTER 4 OF THE MDG, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 19TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 19/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 13/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 15/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 15/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 17/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 5 TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 29/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 16/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 15/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER'S 51 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(H) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 16/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(I) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 15/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 11TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(J) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 17/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 12 TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(K) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 15/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 13TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(L) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 15/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 15TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(M) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 19/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 17TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(N) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED15/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 18TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5(O) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION DATED 15/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 19TH PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTORSHIP TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE TDT RATING REPORT CLASSIFYING THE DISTRIBUTORS IN THE KOZHIKODE REGION.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/03/2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN WP(C) NO.10334/2017 52 W.P(C) No.9331 of 2020 and con.cases 2024:KER:93537 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDATORY LETTERDATED 9.3.2017 EXECUTED BY THE IST PETITIONER EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDLINES 2018 FOR LPG DISTIBUTORSHIP EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27.1.2021 OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN LPA 30/2021 & CM NO.23892021 (STAY) EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2022 PASSED IN LPA 24/2021 AND CM APPL 1843/2021 STAY BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE TABLE CONTAINING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE QUARTER 4/2019 EXHIBIT R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO DISTRIBUTORS EXHIBIT R2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 5.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO DISTRIBUTORS EXHIBIT R2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 8.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO DISTRIBUTORS