Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It is challenging the above finding and direction that the respondents 2 to 4 have independently preferred the three writ appeals.

6. Heard; Sri. Parag P. Tripathi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellants/respondents 2 to 4, assisted by Sri.Paulose C.Abraham and Sri. Dushyant Dave, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first W.A Nos 503, 504 and 505 of 2022 respondent/writ petitioner, assisted by Sri.Deepu Thankan.

7. Sri. Parag P.Tripathi argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, which is against the well-settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have adverted to the objection raised by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, in view of Clause 14 of Exhibit P1. The agreement mandates the parties to resort to the 'ADR' mechanism. Unfortunately, the same was overlooked by the learned Single Judge without assigning any reason. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gail (India) Ltd v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd [(2014) 1 SCC 329] and Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr v. Kurien E.Kalathil [ (2000) 6 SCC 293] to support his submission. He contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the implication of the inter- party judgment in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. KSRTC (supra), on substantially the same issue, which W.A Nos 503, 504 and 505 of 2022 operates as res-judicata against the petitioner. He further contended that, as the petitioner has entered independent contracts with the respondents 2 to 4 for the bulk purchase of petroleum products, the petitioner cannot compare itself to a retail customer. Only equals have to be treated equally. Therefore, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as alleged in the writ petition. He relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.T Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552], Indira Sawhney v. Union of India [ (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217] to fortify his contention. He also submitted that the petitioner is being offered interest-free credit facilities for the first 15 days of supply, and petroleum products are being supplied at the doorsteps of the petitioner's consumer pumps with all facilities and technical services. Approximately Rs.140/- crore is outstanding from the petitioner to the respondents 2 to 4 towards arrears of petroleum charges. Without considering the above factual and legal aspects and the principles of balance of convenience, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order. Now, since the petitioner is not taking W.A Nos 503, 504 and 505 of 2022 supplies from the respondents 2 to 4, no hardship is being caused to them. Hence the writ appeals may be allowed.

33. We accept the submission of Sri. Parag P.Tripathi that the petitioner cannot be treated at par with retail customers because the latter would have to go to a retail outlet and pay for the product then and there. On the contrary, petroleum products are supplied to the petitioner at their doorsteps, with credit facilities and other benefits as envisaged in the contract. Therefore, the petitioner ― a bulk purchaser, falls within a separate class and cannot be treated at par with retail customers. Consequentially, following the principles laid down in K.T Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala and Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (supra) and a whole line of decisions, we hold there is no infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right as alleged in the writ petition.