Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

AND/OR Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."

Arguments of the Petitioner(s)

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that these cases have been tagged as because the Marketing Discipline Guideline (hereinafter referred to as the "MDG") framed by the respondents is under challenge and the only distinguishing feature is that in W.P.(C) No.5781 of 2016, the MDG of the year 2015 is under challenge and in rest of the cases, MDG of the year 2001 is under challenge. However, he submits that the validity of MDG, be it of the year 2001 or 2015, is under challenge essentially on the ground that the MDG itself is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the MDG is de hors of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 and these guidelines are not referrable to any source of power.

7. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as MDG of 2001 is concerned, the same reveals that it was circulated after approval of the Government of India vide letter dated 10.05.2001 addressed to all the Indane Distributors of respondent Indian Oil Corporation. He submits that once the MDG is approved by the Government of India, then it has to have some source of power ingrained in any statute which governs the distribution of LPG or directly under the constitution of India. He submits that the distribution of LPG is governed by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or the order framed thereunder and since MDG is not referrable to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and/or the order framed thereunder, the MDG are wholly without jurisdiction. He has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 673 (Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.), paragraphs 15, 16, 19, and 21 to submit that the executive action has to be undertaken in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of India, and such MDG are not backed by the source of law, and therefore, any action taken under MDG as involved in all these cases, are also without jurisdiction.

26. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the argument of the petitioners that LPG order as well as the MDG cover the same field and there is some overlap with regards to nature of violation but they operate in different fields and accordingly have different impacts; violation of the LPG order is visited with fine/imprisonment, whereas the purpose of MDG is to impose monetary consequences by way of penalty to regulate and discipline the distributors so that the LPG consumers ultimately get timely and quality service. The learned counsel has thereafter referred to the Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 and submitted that the MDG and the LPG order serve different purpose altogether and the purpose of MDG has been enumerated in the introduction to MDG of the year 2015, which is quoted as under:

28. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 19 SCC 662 (supra) and submitted that the judgement is to be read as a whole and in the said judgement, since the dealer was not being prosecuted for violation of Essential Commodities Act,1955 and was being proceeded on account of violation of MDG, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the provision of search and seizure is applicable for the control order and Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 and the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure as applicable for search and seizure are not required to be followed when it comes to violation of MDG. The learned counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has kept the violation under MDG distinct and different from that of violation under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the orders framed thereunder. The learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 15 thereof and has submitted that it has been held that the dealer having entered into agreement, it was not disputed that dealer was bound by MDG issued by public sector oil marketing companies. The learned counsel submits that the dealer having entered into the agreement is certainly bound by MDG in the matter of distribution and marketing of LPG gas cylinder which is an essential commodity. He has also referred to paragraph 16 to submit that some of the provisions of MDG has been considered and it has been observed that the guidelines are to streamline the functioning i.e. oil companies and the oil companies should not send the sample for testing at their sweet will, arbitrarily or without any justification.