Writ Petition No. 20385 of 2019 · Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 8686. As a cumulative effective of aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby uphold to MDG-2012, incorporated on 03.10.2017, except to the limited extent as mentioned in paragraph 85, hereinabove and set aside the impugned judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP…
Judgment
(BY SHRI A.S. PARIHAR, ADVOCATE ) AND
INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF UNION OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SECRETARY SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI (DELHI) THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED R/O: 3079/3, SADIQ NAGAR , JB TITO MARG NEW DELHI (DELHI) THE CHIEF DIVISION (R)MANAGER INDIAN OIL INDIAN OIL CORPORATION BHAWAN , SCHEME NO. 159 KUSHABHAU THAKRE MARG MR.-10 (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED R/O: (BY SHRI YOGESH MITTAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT IOC. ) .....RESPONDENTS T h is petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following: ORDER Counsel for respondents have filed IA No.1337/2022 which is an application for dismissal of the petition in view of the order passed by co-ordinate bench at Principal Bench in WP No.19346/2017 order dated 10/3/2022 and connected petitions, Petitioners are Petrol Pump Dealers at various locations. They have challenged the constitutional validity of the amended provisions contained in clauses 1.5 (x), 5.1.2, 5.1.4(b), 5.1.16 and 5.1.18 as contained in Marketing Signature Not Verified SAN VARGHESE MATHEW 17:16:16 IST Disciplines Guidelines. It appears that similar writ petitions were filed in different High Courts in large numbers. 2 While considering the Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2206/2017 and other connected transfer petitions, Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.11.2017 since was of the view that instead of allowing the transfer petitions, it was expedient to direct one of the High Courts to decide the lis of similar nature first, Delhi High court was requested to decide W.P.(C)No.10334 of 2017. Said Writ Petition was decided and allowed in favour of the petitioners turning down the impugned amendments as aforesaid. The judgment passed by learned Single Judge has been subject matter of LPA24/2021 and CM Appl.1843/2021 and other connected LPS heard on
24.11.2021 by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the judgment has been delivered on 10.01.2022. The relevant part of the judgment necessary for disposal of this petition is quoted below :-
We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge that this is a matter which is best left to the discretion of the ROs Manager, who, we are sanguine, would be best suited to decide to whom the facility is to be extended. To this extent, the reading down of Clause 5.1.14 (b) of the MDG- 2017, by the learned Single Judge, is upheld.
As a cumulative effective of aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby uphold to MDG-2012, incorporated on 03.10.2017, except to the limited extent as mentioned in paragraph 85, hereinabove and set aside the impugned judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.10334/2017, W.P.(C)No.10746/2017 and W.P.(C)No.11246/2017, dated 18.03.2020. the amendments In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of law, this Court has no reason to disagree with the same. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed to the aforesaid extent. VM (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE SAN SAN Signature Not Verified Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by VARGHESE VARGHESE MATHEW MATHEW 17:16:16 IST 17:16:16 IST
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.