{"id":140757,"date":"1999-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999"},"modified":"2019-03-19T04:45:08","modified_gmt":"2019-03-18T23:15:08","slug":"delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 VAD Delhi 365, 81 (1999) DLT 400<\/div>\n
Author: C Nayar<\/div>\n
Bench: C Nayar<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
C.M. Nayar, J. <\/p>\n
1.
\n     This  judgment will dispose of two petitions, C.W.P. No.  2876\/98  and C.W.P.  No.  5753\/98 as common questions arise for consideration  in  these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  first petition, C.W.P. No. 2876\/98 impugns the revised  Marketing Discipline  Guidelines which became effective from 12th May, 1998  and  the second  petition C.W.P. No. 5753\/98 challenges the same guidelines as  well as the earlier guidelines issued in the year 1995.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Petitioner No. 1 in the first petition is stated to be an  Association of  about  300 persons who are running petroleum  products  retail  outlets commonly  known as petrol filling-cum-service stations. There are four  oil companies  which are under the control of the respondent, namely,  Ministry of Petrolium and Oil and Natural Gas, Government of India. These  companiesare as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  I.B.P. Company Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  Hindustan Petroleum Corporation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.   It  is  next stated that all the above four Government  companies  are under the control of Ministry of Petroleum and Oil and Natural Gas and have been  given  the responsibility for sale and distribution of  motor  spirit commonly  known as high speed diesel and other petroleum  products  through retail  outlets. The said respondent is empowered to take the decision  for opening of new retail outlets and the proportionate allocation of the above mentioned four oil companies. The oil companies, on the basis of the  allocation made by the respondent Ministry appoints dealers for the opening  of new  retail outlets, in most of the cases, by developing and employing  all the  necessary  infrastructure,  plant and machinery etc.,  at  the  retail outlets.  Thereafter  the oil companies enter into a  dealership  agreement with  the concerned person for running the retail outlet. As such  all  the members  of petitioner No.1 are operating retail outlets with a  dealership
\nagreement  with the aforesaid oil companies. The agreement incorporates  in detail  the terms and conditions on which members of petitioner No.  1  are under  an  obligation  to run their retail outlets.  Their  activities  are governed and regulated by those terms and conditions which form part of the dealership agreement. A specimen copy of the dealership agreement is  filed as  Annexure-P1 to the writ petition. It is next submitted that  the  field relating  to import, transport, storage, production, reviving and  blending of petroleum is governed by the provisions of Petroleum Act, 1934 and  also Petroleum  Rules, 1976 as made under the Act. A perusal of the Act and  the Rules will show that the legislature has laid down effective mechanism  and control relating to supply of petroleum products, maintenance of the quality  during the distribution thereof. The petroleum retail outlets are  also subject to the provisions of the Weights & Measures Act. The application of
\nthe  enactments as referred to above is elaborated in paragraphs 9, 10  and 11 of Civil Writ Petition No. 2876\/98 which read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “9.  That the petitioners respectfully reiterate that all the Oil dispensing  units which are installed at the petroleum  pump  are installed  and maintained by the respective Oil Companies.  These dispensing  units are continuously managed by the  Oil  Companies  with the cooperation of the officers under the Weight and Measure  Act.  In fact, it is the officers who work under the  Weight  and Measures  and who calibrate and seal these dispensing unit  which  has been installed at the petroleum retail outlets by the respec tive oil industries.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10.  That  the  petitioners respectfully submit that  for  propersupply, distribution and maintaining the quality, these  legislative  provisions provide a complete and self-contained  code  and does  not require the invocation of any other legislative  provision.  In  view  of these specific legislation  provided  by  the legislature, it is respectful submissions of the petitioner, that the  respondent  is not required to resort\/have recourse  to  any other  legislature or any statutory provisions.  The  petitioners submit  that  both for the maintenance of  correct  quantity  and quality of the petroleum products being sold and distributed from the retail outlets are governed by the above mentioned two legislation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.  That  under the provisions of these enactments, namely,  thePetroleum  Act  and Rules and the Weight and  Measures  Act,  the  officers of the Oil Companies, the Ministry and joint  Industries (of  the four oil companies put together) functioning  under  the  respondent Ministry, carry out for regular checks, inspection and verification  with  regard  to the maintenance  of  quantity  and  quality for sale and distribution of quality for sale and distribution  of  petroleum products from retail outlets  at  different hierarchical levels. The different levels on which these officers  are discharging their duties are stated as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  There  is an Area Sales Officer appointed by the  respective oil  companies  who is charged with the obligation to  carry  out  check,  inspection and verification with regard to  the  quantity and  quality of petroleum products sold and distributed from  the  petrol pumps:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  The  officers at the managerial level in all the oil  companies  are also carrying periodical checks and inspection  with  a view  to ensure that the area Sales Officer are doing  their  job effectively.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  The joint industry namely, the officers of all the four  oil companies  jointly  carry  out the check and  inspection  of  the retail  outlets  unit being run under the Control  of  other  oil companies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  The  officers  under the Weight and Measures Act  carry  out heir  check and inspection independently through Zonal  Officer,and also through joint inspection team consisting of Zonal  Officers of other oil companies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)  The Deputy Controller and Chief Controller under the  Weight and  Measure Act also carry out independent check and  inspection  of  these petroleum products. It is submitted that almost on  all the occasion the inspection and check by the senior officials are surprised  inspection so as to effectively achieve the  objective sought  to  be done under the Act.  The  petitioners,  therefore, respectfully  submit  that these legislations  provide  for  both maintenance and quantity and quality of the petroleum products to be sold from these retail outlets and as such the legislature has provided  a complete code for achieving these purpose  for  these specific items.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.   Similar  reference is made to the provisions of Essential  Commodities act by which in exercise of powers under Section 3, the Central  Government issued  an order namely Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel  (Prevention  of Malpractive  in Supply and Distribution) Order 1990 which was subsequently amended in the year 1993. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents can take recourse to the provisions of the above enactments and there is no need to frame the Marketing Discipline Guidelines as sufficient provisions  are made to check the malpractive in the trade. Paragraphs  13,14 and 15 of the Civil Writ Petition No. 2876\/98 read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “13. That both the dealership agreement and the provisions of the control  Order  provide that the dealer is  entitled  to  receive  petroleum product at his retail outlets in a sealed manner,  seal being put by the oil companies. The dealer is not responsible for the quantity and quality of the products before it is received by the  dealer  at the retail outlets through the  transporter  duly  appointed by the Oil Companies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.  That  the  provisions  of  the  control  order  provide  for products  supplied and transportation, power of search  and  seizure,  sampling of products etc. Without prejudice to the  rights and  contentions of the petitioners that in view of the  substantive  legislature,  as  mentioned above,  already  occupying  the field,  the  government could not have invoked the  powers  under  Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is submitted  that the powers under the Essential Commodities Act can be used  sparingly  for maintaining the supply and distribution of the  Essential Commodities. The powers under the Essential Commodities  Act
\n     is  normally exercised for short duration and for dealing with  a situation which arise temporarily causing prejudice to the  main tenance  and  supply of Essential  Commodities.  The  petitioners respectfully  submit that the power under the Essential  Commodities Act cannot be exercised as a permanent measure and specially  in  view of the fact that the field is already occupied  by  sub stantial  legislation  provided  by the  legislature  as  in  the  present case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15.  That  without prejudice to the contention of the  petitioner that  under the circumstances, the Central Government  could  not  have  had exercised the powers under the provisions of  Essential  Commodities  Act, it is respectfully submitted that even  if  for the  sake of argument it is presumed that the Control Order  1990 as  amended  Order 1993 is valid and legal,  it  is  respectfully submitted that it does not provide for any penal provision as the same  have been duly provided under the Petroleum Act  and  Rules  and  also under the Weight and Measure Act which apply with  full force to the activities of the petitioners and the members of the Petitioner No.1 association.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.   The challenge to the guidelines is elaborately stated in paragraphs 17 to 20 which may be reproduced as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     17.  A  perusal  of this order clearly shows that this  order  is neither issued in exercise of any statutory provision nor it  has sanctity  of  any statutory provisions. It is,  therefore,  clear that  the  impugned order dated 12.5.1998 is  only  an  executive instruction which does not have the force of law or any statutory character behind it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18.  That the petitioners respectfully submit that the provisions  of this Revised Market Discipline Guidelines 1998 are  absolutely ultra  vires,  unconstitutional, arbitrary  and  irrational.  The  provision of these 1998 guidelines are also contrary to the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement and also to the  above  mentioned statutory provisions and are thus not sustainable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     19.  These  guidelines  provided  for  such  stringent  provision including  heavy amounts of penalties and automatics  termination of  the dealership agreement, are contrary to law and  are  abso lutely arbitrary and irrational.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20.  That the petitioners respectfully reiterate that they do not dispute the maintenance of supply of correct quality and quantity of  petroleum  products and making available of other  basic  and  community  facilities  to the customers. The petitioners  in  the  following  paragraphs  would demonstrate  the  arbitrariness  and irrationality of these impugned guidelines.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (A)  Dispensing  units  at the petrol pumps are owned  and  maintained by the oil company. They are calibrated and seals are  put by the officers of the Weight and Measure Department. It is  also admitted position that despite certification by the oil companies and the manufacture of these dispensing units, these machines are capable  of  and  erratic delivery at  different  temperature  at different  condition etc. In any case the complete  mechanism  to deal  with any deliberate short supply of the petroleum  products  has been provided for under the Weights and Measures Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (B)  Insofar  as  the quality of the petroleum products  is  concerned,  it is respectfully submitted that the dealers are  entitled to receive petroleum products through sealed tanker provided by the oil companies at their retail outlets. The quality of  the  petroleum  products  as being received at the retail  outlets  is tested  by way of checking the density of the petroleum  products as  mentioned on the invoice issued by the oil companies.  It  is  submitted  that it is the only test which can be carried  out  at the  retail outlets. Under the provisions of the  impugned  order  every  dealer  is required to maintain  density  record  register wherein the density of every supply received from the oil  companies depot is to be mentioned on receipt of the products and  the  density of the products in the tank in the morning everyday is to
\n     be recorded there. The dealer is therefore under an obligation to sell  the  petroleum product of such density which  had  received  from the oil company. It is only in the case any variance  beyond  a permissible limit in the density of the petroleum products that  the officers of the oil company also are entitled to take  sample  from  the retail outlets for further investigation  and  suitable  action is also provided in the dealership agreement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (C)  It  is respectfully submitted that the dealer is obliged  to  ensure that it is selling the petroleum products at such  density  which  it  had received from the oil company and  maintained  the  density  record on the daily base as per the format  provided  by  the oil company. If the dealer is able to show that it is selling the  petroleum products at the same density level as it  has  received  the  same  from the oil company  neither  the  dealership agreement nor any of the provisions of law occupying the field as enumerated  above, provided any penal action against the  dealer. Earlier  also when the respondent had tried to  impose  arbitrary  provisions for taking samples despite the density being found  in order, the Ministry by its office order dated 12.9.96 had  clarified  that the staff of the oil companies would not  entitled  to
\n     take samples in that situation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (D)  These revised guidelines also provide for heavy penalty  for the alleged discourteous behavior and for non-providing first aid  and  toilet facility. It is submitted that all  these  facilities  for toilet etc. are to be provided by the oil company. At a  side namely  where the retail outlets are owned by the oil  companies, the  dealer  cannot be penalised for some  deficiencies  in  this regard.  The ground of discourteous behavior empowering  the  authority  to impose heavy penalty and cancel the licence is  absolutely  arbitrary,  irrational and  ultravirus.  The  petitioners
\n     submit  that no doubt that the employees of the dealers  are  required to maintain minimum level of courtesy to the customer. For every  discourteous behavior, when staff is dealing thousand  and  thousand customers a day, inviting penal measures are  absolutely arbitrary, ultra vires and unsustainable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (E)  That the calculation for distributing the petroleum products  go even in the paise. It is a matter of common knowledge that the  smaller denomination coins are not easily available. The settling  of  accounts with every customer in paise is not possible. At  so  many times the customers are required to pay a few paise more  or few paise less. In certain events there are bona fide mistake  in  putting  the  correct number of paise in the case memo.  Even  in such cases the revises guidelines proposed measure penalty termination of the dealership licence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (F)  The  petitioners  respectfully  submit  that  these  revised  guidelines provide for minor and major penalty which are  without  any  authority and sanction of law and the guideline even do  not specify  what are the minor discrepancies and what are the  major  discrepancies including the minor and major penalties respective ly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (G)  That the entire infrastructure and lay out to the  equipment at  the  retail outlets is provided by the oil company.  The  oil  company take the permission under the explosive Act for which the dealer has no say. The guidelines now provide that if the authority  under the explosive Act find any discrepancy in the lay  out    and  providing infrastructure and equipment, that will  become  a  ground  for  the  oil company to take penal  action  against  the  dealership to minate the licence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (H)  That  the revised guidelines, without prejudice to the  contention  of  the petitioners that it is   unconstitutional,  ultra  vires,  no where provide even a minimum semblance  of  reasonable  opportunity to the dealer of being heard before any penal  action is taken.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On  31.5.1998, i.e. Sunday, three members of the petitioner  No.1 association  have  been directed to suspend their  operation,  in   purported  exercise  of  power under the  revised  guideline  and without  having given any opportunity to them of  hearing  before  they were directed to suspend their operation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (I)  The guidelines provided for surprise check and in the  event of  non-production of record the guidelines provide for  termination  of  the  licence. It is submitted that  the  production  of  record at the surprise visit while the office of the petrol  pump  is closed, can never invite such drastic and penal action because  the dealer can always provide the record if asked by the  inspection  team within a reasonable time. The disability of the  staff of the dealer at surprise visit at odd hours when the records can never  be  produced,  cannot be the basis for  any  penal  action  including termination of the licence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   Firstly reference may be made to the relevant provisions of the  dealership  agreement  which  is filed as Annexure-P1  to  the  writ  petition.Clauses  13, 25, 26, 30, 38, 43 and 56 of the agreement make the  following reading:-\n<\/p>\n
     “13. The  Corporation  has installed at its own  expense  at  and under  the premises the outfit described in the  Second  Schedule hereunder  written. The Corporation may install at  the  premises such  other apparatus and equipment from time to time as  it  may  deem necessary for the efficient working of the retail outlet and  all such other apparatus and equipment shall be deemed to be  and form part of the outfit. Provided that the Corporation shall have  the right to remove any particular item or items of apparatus  or  equipment  comprised in the outfit without assigning  any  reason
\n     therefore.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “25. The quantities of petroleum and other allied products stated  to   be  delivered  by  the  Corporation  as  measured   by   the  Corporation’s  measuring  devices  or means shall  be  final  and  binding upon the parties hereto. A receipt signed by or on behalf  of  the  Dealer  at the time of delivery by  the  Corporation  of  petroleum products will be conclusive evidence that the petroleum  products mentioned therein were in fact delivered to the  Dealer, that  such  products were in accordance with  the  specifications  therefore  mentioned  hereunder and that the quantities  of  such
\n     products  mentioned  in the receipt are correct, and  the  Dealer  shall  thereafter be precluded from making any claim against  the  Corporation for compensation of otherwise on the ground of  short delivery or contamination of such products.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     26.  The Dealer shall be responsible for all loss, contamination, damage  or  shortage of or to the products,  whether  partial  or  entire,  and  no  claim will be entertained  by  the  Corporation therefore  under  any  circumstances except in  cases  where  the  Corporation is satisfied that loss arose from leakage from underground tanks or pipes which the Dealer could not reasonably  have  discovered  and of which the Dealer gave immediate notice to  the  Corporation on discovery.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     30.  The Dealer shall not make supplies of petroleum products  of the  Corporation to any other person\/firm or company  whose  supplies have been stopped by the Corporation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “38. The Corporation will be entitled at all times to enter  into and  inspect  the  management of the retail outlet  by  the  said Dealer  in all respects and the Dealer shall be bound  to  render all  assistance and give all information to the  Corporation  and  its duly authorised representatives in that behalf.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “43. The Dealer undertakes faithfully and promptly to carry  out,  observe  and  perform all direction or rules given or  made  from  time to time by the Corporation for the proper carrying on of the dealership  of  the Corporation. The  Dealer  shall  scrupulously  observe and comply with all laws, rules, regulations and requisitions  of  the Central\/State Governments and of  all  authorities  appointed  by them or either of them including in particular  the Chief Inspector of Explosive, Government of India, and\/or Municipal  and\/or any other local authority with regard to the  storage and sale of such petroleum products.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “56. Notwithstanding  anything to the contrary herein  contained, the  Corporation shall be at liberty to terminate this  Agreement forthwith  upon or at any time after the happening of any of  the following events, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  If the Dealer shall commit a breach of any of the  covenants and  stipulations contained in the Agreement, and fail to  remedy  such  breach within four days of the receipt of a written  notice from the Corporation in that regard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  Upon<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  the death or adjudication as insolvent of the Dealer, if  he  is an individual;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) the  dissolution of the partnership of the Dealer’s firm  on   the  death  or adjudication as insolvent of any  partner  of  the  firm, if the Dealer be a firm;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)     the  liquidation whether voluntary or otherwise of  the passing of an effective resolution for winding up, if the  Dealer be a Company or Co-operation Society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  If any attachment is levied and continued to be levied for a  period  of seven days upon the effect of the Dealer or any  individual  partner  for the time being of the Dealer’s firm  or  any member of the Dealer Co-operative Society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  If  the  Dealer or any partner in the Dealer’s firm  or  any  member of the Co-operative Society appointed as Dealer  hereunder hall be convicted of a criminal offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)  If  a Receiver shall be appointed of any property or  assets of  the  Dealer  or of any partner in the Dealer’s  firm  of  any member of the Dealer Co-operative Society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f)  If the licence issued to the Dealer by the relevant authori ties for the storage of petroleum products supplied by the Corporation is canceled or revoked.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (g)  if  the Dealer shall for any reason make default in  payment to  the  Corporation in full or his outstanding as  appearing  in Corporation’s  books of accounts beyond 4 days of demand  by  the  Corporation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (h)  If  the  Dealer does not adhere to the  instructions  issued from  time  to time by the Corporation in  connection  with  safe  practices  to  be followed by him in the  supply\/storage  of  the Corporation’s products or otherwise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  If the Dealer shall deliberately contaminate or tamper  with  the quality of any of the Corporation’s products.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (j)  If  the  Dealer  shall sell the  Corporation’s  products  at   prices higher than those fixed by the Corporation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (k)  If the Dealer shall either by himself or by his servants  or Agents  commit  or suffer to be committed any act which,  in  the  opinion of the Executive Director of the Corporation for the time being  in  whose decision shall be final, is prejudicial  to  the  interest  or  good name of the Corporation or its  products;  the  General  Manager  shall  not be bound to give  reasons  for  such  decision.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (l)  If  any information given by the Dealer in  his  application for appointment as a Dealer shall be found to untrue or incorrect in any material respect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  Corporation’s  right to terminate this Agreement  under  the terms  of  this clause shall be without prejudice to any  of  its  other rights and remedies against the Dealer. In the event of the  Corporation  terminating this Agreement under the  provisions  of   this  clause, it shall not be liable to pay for any loss or  compensation in respect of such termination PROVIDED THAT the supply of  any  petroleum  products by the Corporation  to  the  Dealer,  pending  expiry  of any notice of termination or after  any  act,contravention or omission by the Dealer  entitling the Corporation
\n     to terminate this Agreement shall have become known to the Corporation shall not in any way prejudice or affect the right of  the Corporation  to  revoke and\/or enforce the  termination  of  this  Agreement and the licence granted hereunder.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   The  learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the  respondents  can only act under the provisions of clause 43 of the  agreement  and cannot formulate their own guidelines by introducing new set of  penalities which are not prescribed in any of the Statutes such as the Petroleum  Act,weights  &  Measures  Act and the Essential Commodities  Act.  The  salient features of the impugned guidelines effective from 12th May, 1998 are filed as  Annexure-P6 to the writ petition. The petitioners are prima  facie  aggrieved by the imposition of fines for major and minor irregularities as it
\nis contended that these cannot be justified as no statutory power is vested in the Authorities to impose such penalties. The irregularities as referred to  in  the  guidelines as well as the proposed punishments  as  stated  in CHAPTER-6, titled “PREVENTION OF IRREGULARITIES AT RETAIL OUTLETS (MS\/HSD) ” relating to major and minor irregularities may be reproduced as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “CHAPTER 6<\/p>\n
PREVENTION OF IRREGULARITIES AT RETAIL OUTLETS (MS\/HSD)<\/p>\n
                          MAJOR IRREGULARITIES :\n<\/p>\n
     1.   ADULTERATION OF PRODUCT:\n<\/p>\n
     Definition:\n<\/p>\n
     “Adulteration”  means the introduction of any  foreign  substance into  motor spirit\/high speed diesel illegally or  unauthorisedly   with the result that the product does not conform to the requirements indicated in Appendix “B”.\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  Individual  Oil  Company Officers should carry  out  density checks  and furfural checks (wherever applicable) at  the  Retail Outlets  as  per the prescribed guidelines.  Moreover  on  random  basis,  at the discretion of the Inspecting Officer, samples  may  be drawn for clinical tests\/RON, even if the density matches.\n<\/p>\n
     (b)  If  density  check or furfural check  (wherever  applicable) indicates possible adulteration:\n<\/p>\n
     Sales  and supplies of all products to be suspended  immediately till such time investigations are completed. Meter and  dip readings should be recorded in the inspection Report duly  signed by the Dealer or his representative together with rubber stamp of dealership  and each page of the inspection report shall be  initialed by Inspecting Officer and  Dealer\/Dealer’s  representative. Dispensing Pumps and Tanks should be sealed.\n<\/p>\n
     (c)  Wherever samples are drawn, either pursuant to random checks or  where adulteration is suspected, 3 sets of signed and  sealed  samples (6×1 ltr. of MS and 3×1 ltr. of HSD) should be  collected  from the RO, out of which one set should be kept with the dealer,  one  with  the company and the third to be  sent  for  laboratory testing  within  10 days. For the sample kept  with  the  dealer,  proper  acknowledgement will be obtained and the dealer  will  be instructed  to preserve the sample in his safe custody  till  the
\n     testing\/investigations are completed.\n<\/p>\n
     It is necessary that the Officer sending the sample should inform the dispatching location concerned to retain the reference sample  drawn  from TLF of the particular date of dispatch of the T\/T  to  the  concerned  Retail Outlet corresponding to the  sample  being  tested.\n<\/p>\n
     The laboratory test will be done at any Industry  Laboratory  to  determine  variations in any of the following    parameters  as compared  to  sample of product supplied. Reference  for  Density  would, however, be Density of product after last receipt:\n<\/p>\n
                TEST METHOD
\n               IS :   1448
\n     Motor Spirit : Tests
\n     (1)  Appearance               Visual
\n     (2)  Colour                   Visual
\n     (3)  Density @ 15C            P-16
\n     (4)  Distillation             P-18
\n     IBP Degree C
\n     Recovery upto 70 Degree  C % V
\n     Recovery upto 100 Degree      C % V
\n     Recovery upto 180 Degree      C % V
\n     Final Boiling Point Degree    C
\n     Residue, % V
\n     (5)  Existent gum             P-29
\n     (6)  RON*                     P-27
\n     *Refinery will carry out only Octane Number test. Wherever Octane
\n     Number  test facility is available in marketing  laboratory,  the
\n     same shall be carried out at the marketing laboratory.\n<\/p>\n
     High Speed Diesel   :    Tests\n     (1)  Appearance               Visual\n     (2)  Colour                   Visual \n     (3)  Density @ 15 decree C    P-16\n     (4)  Kinematic Viscosity \n     CS at 40 Degree C        P-25\n     (5)  Distillation, 90%\n     volume recovery\n     at Degree C max.         P-18\n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     The  above  mentioned tests will be carried out as  per  standard Test methods as given in the Bureau of Indian Standard Specification, IS : 1448 : P- Methods for respective tests.\n<\/p>\n
     The  above test-results on the sample taken from the Retail  Outlet\/Tank Truck should be within the reproducibility limits of the test-method when compared to the reference sample, at dispatching location.\n<\/p>\n
     (d)  If the sample passes the lab. test, including RON in case of MS,  sales  and supplies of all products, if  suspended  earlier, will be resumed to the dealer immediately.\n<\/p>\n
     If  the sample is certified to be adulterated,  after  laboratory  test,  a  show-cause notice should be served on  the  dealer  and  explanation of the dealer sought within 7 days of the receipt  of the show-cause notice. If the explanation of dealer is not satis factory, the Company should take action as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Fine of Rs. 1 lakh and suspension of sales and supplies  for  45 days the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Termination in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (e)  Handling of Adulterated Product.\n<\/p>\n
     In  case  of proven adulteration, the product  (MS\/HSD)  will  be taken  back by the concerned Oil Company to the nearest  location where  separate storage facilities for handling such  adulterated product are available. The product will be corrected in consultation  with QC Department of the Region. Entire  expenses  towards  transportation,  pumping  of product, tank  cleaning,  incidental  charges, local levies, etc. will be borne by the dealer.\n<\/p>\n
     In  cases where product is upgraded to MS or downgraded  to  HSD,  the dealer will be paid an amount equivalent to the cost of  HSD. In  cases where the product is downgraded to other than HSD,  the dealer will be paid an amount equivalent to the cost of downgrad ed product.\n<\/p>\n
     In both the above cases, credit will be given only for the  quantity actually upgraded\/downgraded. Any losses, etc. will be borne by the dealer.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   SHORT DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS:\n<\/p>\n
     When Weights & Measures seals are tampered with:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 30 days alongwith a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Fine  of Rs.1 lakh and suspension of sales and  supplies  of all products for 45 days in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     Termination in the third instance. \n \n\n\n     3.   STOCK VARIATION \n \n\n\n     MS and HSD\n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Stock reconciliation should be carried out and variation, if any,  established  after  taking into account the normal  variation  in  operational levels of +\/- 4% of tank stock and after  considering   the following factors:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Evaporation\/handling losses in MS as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     0.75% on quantity sold upto an annual average of 600 KLs.\n<\/p>\n
     0.60% on additional quantity beyond an annual average 600 KLs.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Handling losses in HSD as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     0.25% on quantity sold upto an annual average of 600 KLs.\n<\/p>\n
     0.20% on additional quantity beyond an annual average of 600 KLs.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     Shrinkage losses on MS\/HSD temperature variation allow ance  (TVA)  quantities on MS and HSD to be  taken  into  account (only in those cases\/locations where and when the TVA is applica ble).\n<\/p>\n
    In  case  there  is variation in stocks  beyond  the  permissiblelimits, sales and supplies of all products to be suspended  immediately, samples to be drawn and sent for testing within 10  days  as well as dealer’s explanation to be called for within 7 days.\n<\/p>\n
     If explanation is unsatisfactory:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 30 days longwith a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Fine  of Rs.1 lakh and suspension of sales and  supplies  of  all products for 45 days in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     Termination in the third instance.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   UNAUTHORISED  PURCHASES\/SALES\/EXCHANGE  OF MS,  HSD  OR  ANY  OTHER  PRODUCT  WHICH  COULD BE USED AS A  SUBSTITUTE  FOR  THESE
\n     PRODUCTS<\/p>\n
     Seek dealer’s explanation within 7 days. In case, the explanation is not satisfactory:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 30 days alongwith a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Fine  of Rs.1 lakh and suspension of sales and  supplies  of  all products for 45 days in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     Termination in the third instance.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   NN-AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE DENSITY AND\/OR SAMPLES OF LAST SUPPLY AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION<\/p>\n
     Sales  and supplies of all products to be suspended  immediately, samples to be drawn and sent for testing within 10 days.\n<\/p>\n
     In  case product meets specification, sales and supplies  of  all  products to be resumed with a warning letter.\n<\/p>\n
     In case of product being off spec:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 30 days alongwith a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Fine  of Rs.1 lakh and suspension of sales asd  supplies  of all products of 45 days in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     Termination in the third instance. \n \n\n\n     6.   TOTALISER SEALS IF FOUND TAMPERED WITH\n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     (i)  Suspension  of sales and supplies of all product of 30  days  alongwith a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Fine  of Rs.1 lakh and suspension of sales and  supplies  of  all products for 45 days in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     Termination in the third instance. \n \n\n\n     MINOR IRREGULARITIES\n \n\n\n     1.   OVERCHARGING IN AUTHORISED SELLING PRICES OF MS\/HSD\n \n\n\n     (a)  Dealer to be advised to charge correct prices. \n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     (b)  Seek  dealer’s  written explanation within 7  days.  If  the explanation is not satisfactory:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 15 days  alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Suspension  of  sales and supplies for 30 days  alongwith  a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 45  days alongwith a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in the third instance.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   SHORT DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS<\/p>\n
     When Weights & Measures seals are intact but deliveries are below tolerance limit:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  Sales  and  supplies should be stopped from  the  Dispensing  unit  till  recalibration is carried out by  Weights  &  Measures   department.\n<\/p>\n
     (b)  (i). Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 15  days alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Suspension  of  sales and supplies for 30 days  alongwith  a  fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 45 days alongwith a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in the third instance.\n<\/p>\n
     iv)  In  extreme  cases, where it is proved that the  dealer  has  tampered with the delivery system, termination will be considered  in the fourth instance.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   PROVISION OF UNAUTHORISED STORAGE FACILITIES<\/p>\n
     In  case of detection of storage facilities not approved  by  the Company and\/or not in accordance with Explosive’s approval:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  Sales  and  supplies of all products to  be  suspended  with  immediate effect.\n<\/p>\n
     (b)  Show-cause  notice to be issued to the dealer calling for  a  written explanation within 7 days.\n<\/p>\n
     (c) If written explanation is not satisfactory:\n<\/p>\n
     (i) Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 15  days alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)  Suspension  of sales and supplies for 30 days  alongwith  a  fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)  Suspension  of sales and supplies of all products  for  45 days alongwith a fine of Rs.1 lakh in the third instance.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   NON-OBSERVANCE OF GOVT. REGULATIONS AND COMPANY’S  OPERATING  GUIDELINES\/INSTRUCTIONS,  IF  ANY, ON SALE  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS<\/p>\n
     For  non-observance  of  Govt.  regulations  like  Essential Commodities  Act, Explosives Act, Petroleum Act and  Control  Orders, a written explanation is to be sought from the dealer which f  found to be satisfactory, no action to be taken. However,  if  explanation is found not satisfactory, the following to be done:\n<\/p>\n
     (i) Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 15  days a longwith a fine of Rs. 20,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)  Suspension  of sales and supplies for 30 days  alongwith  a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)  Suspension  of sales and supplies of all products  for  45 days alongwith a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in the third instance.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   NOT  PRODUCING FOR INSPECTION STOCK\/SALES REGISTERS  AT  THE  TIME OF SURPRISE CHECK<\/p>\n
     (i) Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 15  days alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)  Suspension  of sales and supplies for 30 days  alongwith  a  fine a Rs. 50,000\/- in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)  Suspension  of sales and supplies of all products  for  45  days alongwith a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in the third instance.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   NON  PROVISION OF FREE AIR, DRINKING WATER, RADIATOR  WATER,  TOILET  FACILITIES,  TELEPHONE (WHERE POSSIBLE),  FIRST-AID,  PUC  (WHERE  APPLICABLE)  AT RO PREMISES, THE FOLLOWING ACTION  TO  BE TAKEN  (IN  EXCEPTIONAL CASE WHERE TOILET  FACILITIES  CANNOT  BE PROVIDED  BECAUSE OF MUNICIPAL AND OTHER  RESTRICTIONS,  SUITABLE  LETTER TO BE ISSUED TO DEALER TO AVOID DISCIPLINARY ACTION).\n<\/p>\n
     (i) Fine of Rs. 10,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Fine of Rs. 30,000\/- in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)  Suspension of sales and supplies for 45 days  alongwith  a fine of Rs.1 lakh in the third instance and thereafter for  every
\n     subsequent similar offence.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   ESTABLISHED CASES OF DISCOURTEOUS BEHAVIOR BY DEALER  AND\/OR
\n     HIS STAFF, NON-PRODUCING OF SUGGESTION\/COMPLAINT BOOK<\/p>\n
     (i) Fine of Rs. 10,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Fine of Rs. 30,000\/- in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)  Suspension of sales and supplies for 45 days  alongwith  a  fine of Rs. 1 lakh in the third instance and thereafter for every  subsequent similar offence.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   ESTABLISHED  CASES OF ISSUANCE OF FAKE PUC  CERTIFICATES  BY  DEALERS HAVING PUC FACILITIES<\/p>\n
     (i) Suspension of sales and supplies of all products for 15  days alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000\/- in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)  Suspension  of sales and supplies for 30 days  alongwith  a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in the second instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii) Termination in the third instance.\n<\/p>\n
     NOTE:\n<\/p>\n
     (i) The above are general guidelies and notwithstanding what  has  been  stated above, the competent Authority of the concerned  Oil Company  can take appropriate higher punitive action against  the  erring dealer including termination in the first or any instance.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Every punitive action would be taken after show cause notice  of minimum seven days.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii) The cycle of calculating second and third instance shall be  five years starting from the date of first irregularity.\n<\/p>\n
     (iv) In case, two or more irregularities are detected at the same  item  at the same RO, action will be taken in line with  what  is listed in the MDG under the relevant category for each irregularity.\n<\/p>\n
     (v)  All  irregularities established under  “Major”  and  “Minor” categories will be treated separately for the purpose of imposing  penalties.\n<\/p>\n
     (vi) Filed staff should ensure that samples for testing are  sent to the Laboratory within 10 days of drawal of the same. Lab. test   reports should thereafter be made available within ten days.\n<\/p>\n
     (vii)  In case of irregularities not specifically  mentioned\/covered above, the competent\/appropriate authority of the  concerned  Oil  Company  shall impose proper penalty  and\/or  issue  warning  letter  after  enquiry and in accordance with the  principles  of  natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
     (viii) Under existing laws, Control Orders etc., various authorities  of Central Government\/State Government-in addition  to  Oil  Company  officers  –  are empowered to carry out  checks  of  the dealership  for  determining and securing  compliance  with  such  laws\/Control  Order.  If  any “malpractice  or  irregularity”  is   established  by such authorities after checking, the  same  would also  be  taken as a “malpractive or  irregularity”  under  these  guidelines  and prescribed punitive action would be taken by  the Oil Company, on receipt of advice from such authority.\n<\/p>\n
     (ix)  Wherever fine with suspension has been provided, fine  must  be paid within suspension period, failing which suspension  would be  extended by the equivalent period. If fine is not  paid  even within the extended period, the dealership would be terminated.”\n<\/p>\n
9.   The following grounds are urged by learned counsel for the petitioners assail the punishments as proposed in the guidelines and as referred  to above:-\n<\/p>\n
     (i) The exercise of executive power must have a legitimate source of  power  which may either be contractual or statutory.  In  the present  case the Statutes provide penalties and punishments  and the respondents have to move within that framework. The agreement  also  does not provide any imposition of fines on the members  of the petitioner Association and, therefore, the guidelines  cannot  be sustained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)  If there are two kinds of powers only less onerous  may  be applied  and the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of  such  exercise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)  The  guidelines are arbitrary, irrational  and  cannot  be sustained  as no provision of hearing or fair procedure has  been  prescribed.  Reliance  is  placed on the  judgments  reported  as  Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, (1974) 2 Supreme Court Cases 402; M\/s.  Khemka  &  Co.  (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of  Maharashtra  ; Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. Shrad Kumar Jayanti Kumar Pasawalla and others, .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.  Paragraphs 6 and 14 of the judgment in the case of Maganlal Chhaganlal(P) Ltd. (supra) may be reproduced as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “6.  The  argument based on the availability of  two  procedures,one  more  onerous  and harsher than the  other  and,  therefore, discriminatory  has  led some High Courts to  resort  to  various  reasoning in order to get round the effect of the decision in the Northern  India Caterers case (supra). This has happened  in  the case of the Madras High Court in Abdul Rashid Vs. Asstt. Engineer  (Highways),  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Begum Vs.  State   and Meharunnissa Begum Vs. State of Andhra Pardesh and the  Patna  High Court in Bhartiya Hotel Vs. Union of India. The decision  of   the  Patna  High Court is one of the cases which  was  considered  along  with Hari Singh’s case (supra). It is  rather  interesting
\n     that this attack based on Art. 14 of the Constitution should have  led to the apparently more onerous and harsher procedure becoming  the rule, the resort to the ordinary Civil Court being taken away  altogether. It is difficult to imagine who benefits by resort  to  the ordinary Civil Courts being barred. One finds it difficulties  to reconcile oneself to the position that the mere possibility of
\n     resort  to the Civil Court should make invalid a procedure  which  would otherwise be valid. It can very well be argued that as long  as a procedure does not by itself violate either Art. 19 or  Art.  14 and is thus constitutionally valid, the fact that procedure is   more onerous and harsher than the procedure in the ordinary Civil  Courts,  should not make that procedure void merely  because  the authority  competent to take action can resort to that  procedure  in  the  case of some and ordinary Civil Court procedure  in  the   case  of others. That a constitutionally valid provision  of  law should  be held to be void because there is a possibility of  its    being  resorted  to in the case of some and  the  ordinary  Civil
\n     Court  procedure  in the case of others somehow  makes  one  feel uneasy  and  that has been responsible for the  attempts  to  get   round the reasoning which is the basis in the decision in  North ern India Caterers case (supra).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “14. To summarise: Where as statute providing for a more  drastic procedure different from the ordinary procedure covers the  whole  field covered by the ordinary procedure, as in Anwer Ali Sarkar’s  case and Suraj Mall Mohta’s case without any guidelines as to the  class  of cases in which either procedure is to be  resorted  to,  the  statute will be hit by Art. 14. Even there,as  mentioned  in Suraj  Mall Mohta’s case (supra) a provision for appeal may  cure  the  defect.  Further,  in such cases if from  the  preamble  and urrounding  circumstances,  as  well as the  provisions  of  the statute themselves explained and amplified by affidavits,  necessary  guidelines could be inferred as in Saurashtra case  (supra)  and  Jyoti Pershad’s case (supra) the statute will not be hit  by  Art. 14. Then again where the statute itself covers only a  class  of  cases as in Haldar’s case (supra) and Bajoria’s case  (supra) the  statute  will not be bad. The fact that in  such  cases  the  executive  will  choose  which cases are to be  tried  under  the  special  procedure will not affect the validity of  the  statute.   Therefore,  the  contention  that the mere  availability  of  two   procedures  will vitiate one of them that is the  special  procedure, is not supported by reason or authority.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.  Reference is made to paragraph 39 of the judgment in the case of  M\/s.Khemka & Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “39. On  a  consideration of the provisions mentioned  above,  it seems  to  me  to be clear that whatever may be  the  objects  of levying  a  penalty, its imposition gives rise to  a  substantive liability which can be viewed either as an additional tax or as a fine for the infringement of the law. The machinery or  procedure  for its realisation comes into operation after its imposition. In  any  case, it is an imposition of a pecuniary liability which  is comparable  to a punishment for the commission of an offence.  It  is a well settled canon of construction of statutes that  neither a  pecuniary liability can be imposed nor an offence  created  by  mere implication. It may be debatable whether a particular proce dural provision creates a substantive right or liability. But,  I  do not think that the imposition of a pecuniary liability,  which  takes  the  form  of a penalty or find for a breach  of  a  legal obligation, can be relegated to the region of mere procedure  and   machinery for the realisation of tax. It is more than that.  Such liabilities  must be created by clear, unambiguous,  and  express  enactment. The language used should leave no serious doubts about its effect so that the persons who are to be subjected to such  a liability for the infringement of law are not left in a state  of
\n     uncertainty  as to what their duties or liabilities are. This  is an  essential  requirement of a good Government of  laws.  It  is implied in the constitutional mandate found in Article 265 of our Constitution  :  “No tax shall be levied or collected  except  by   authority of law”.”\n<\/p>\n
12.  The  respondents, it is contended are not empowered to levy fines  and penalties when no specific provision is made in various enactments such  as the  Petroleum  Act, Weights & Measures Act and the  Essential  Commodities Act. Reference is made to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra) which read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “7.  After  giving our anxious consideration to  the  contentions raised  by Mr. Goswami, it appears to us that in a fiscal  matter   it will not be proper to hold that even in the absence of express  provision,  a delegated authority can impose tax or fee.  In  our view,  such  power of imposition of tax and\/or fee  by  delegated  authority must be very specific and there is no scope of  implied authority  for  imposition of such tax or fee. It appears  to  us  that the delegated authority must act strictly within the parame ters  of the authority delegated to it under the Act and it  will
\n     not  be proper to bring the theory of implied intent or the  concept of incidental and ancillary power in the matter of  exercise of  fiscal  power.  The facts and circumstances in  the  case  of istrict Council of Jowai are entirely different. The exercise of powers  by the Autonomous Jaintia Hills Districts are  controlled by the constitutional provisions and in the special facts of  the  case,  this Court has indicated that the realisation of just  fee  for  a specific purpose by the autonomous District was  justified  and  such  power was implied. The said decision  cannot  be  made  applicable  in the facts of this case or the same should  not  be  held  to have laid down any legal proposition that in matters  of imposition  of tax or fees, the question of necessary  intendment   may be looked into when there is no express provision for imposi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     tion  of  fee or tax. The other decision  in  Khargram  Panchayat  Samiti case also deals with the exercise of ncidental and conse quential  power in the field of administrative law and  the  same does not deal with the power of imposing tax and fee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.   The  High Court has referred to the decisions of this  Court in  Hingir  case and Jagannath Ramanuj case and  Delhi  Municipal  Corporation  case.  It has been consistently held by  this  Court  that  whenever there is compulsory exaction of any  money,  there  should  be specific provision for the same and there is  no  room   for  intendment. Nothing is to be read and nothing is to  be  implied  and one should look fairly to the language used.  We  are,   therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Goswami.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Accordingly, there is no occasion to interfere with the  impugned  decision  of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and  isdismissed with no order as to costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.  On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents have  argued that ample power is provided to frame the guidelines in pursuance to clause 43 of the Agreement. This clause may again be reproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “43. The Dealer undertakes faithfully and promptly to carry  out,  observe   and  perform all direction or rules given or  made  from  time to time by the Corporation for the proper carrying on of the  dealership  of  the Corporation. The  Dealer  shall  scrupulously  observe and comply with all laws, rules, regulations and requisitions  of  the Central\/State Governments and of  all  authorities appointed  by them or either of them including in particular  the Chief Inspector of Explosive, Government of India, and\/or Municipal  and\/or any other local authority with regard to the  storage   and sale of such petroleum products.”\n<\/p>\n
14.  The guidelines were framed to check malpractice and to rationalise and ensure observance of quality, quantity and excellent customer service.  The salient features of the guidelines are stated as follow :-\n<\/p>\n
     “3.  While  recommending the increase in the dealers’  commission recently,  it was decided that to justify the higher  commission, dealers  should  also provide better services to  the  customers. Accordingly,  it was decided that further more stringent  punishment  should be provided for various types of irregularities  and   malpractices,  in a rationalised manner to ensure  observance  of  norms  of quality, quantity and excellent customer service,  Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 1998 have been prepared in  accordance with this principle.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   It was also desired that there should be an effective mechanism  for redressal of grievances of consumers. It has been  proposed that District Magistrate of every District will be requested  to fix a day in each quarter of three months on which, he  or  his representative may be present in a forum of public  functionaries,  dealers\/distributors and the senior officers of  the  oil companies  and  the  consumers. The problems  and  grievances  of consumers  will  be addressed on the spot and  further  necessary directions given to oil companies and dealers.”\n<\/p>\n
15.  Further  explanation for the necessity of framing the  revised  guidelines  in  1998  is elaborately stated in additional  affidavit  dated  7th December,  1998  filed on behalf of the respondent by  Shri  H.C.  Khurana, Under  Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The  purpose and the spirit behind revising the earlier guidelines as framed in 1982 and 1985 are stated in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 which may be  reproduced as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “2.  That  Marketing Discipline Guidelines are in force for  more than  a  decade and the same were revised from time  to  time  in  public  interest so as to bring uniformity in guidelines of  various Oil Companies, to ensure sale of correct quality and quantity of petroleum products to bring in effective check and  balance against adulteration, short supply etc. and to ensure good  service to customers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.   That  Marketing Discipline Guidelines were first  formulated  in the year 1982 with an objective to bring in uniform guidelines  for  all  the four Oil Companies as previously all the  four  oil  companies were having their own guidelines. The other  objectives   were   strict  imposition  of  penal  action  and   fairness   in  approach\/dealings with dealers of various oil companies. Copy  of  the  Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 1982 is annexed hereto  and  marked as Annexure-A.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.   That the Marketing Discipline Guidelines of 1982 were subsequently  revised in 1995, the guidelines of 1982 were not  effective  in checking adulteration, short supply etc.  Further,  1982  Marketing  Discipline  Guidelines contained only  suspension  and   termination  as penal action against the violation of the  guidelines  and dealership agreements. Therefore, keeping  the  public interest  in view, the 1982 guidelines were revised in  1995  and  fines  were introduced, as suspension in the first instance  even for minor penalty caused undue hardship to the consumers and such  action even for minor offences may not have consumerate with  the action  taken  in  the interest of petrol dealers.  Copy  of  the marketing  Discipline  Guidelines  1995 are  annexed  hereto  and  marked as Annexure-B.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.   That the Guidelines of 1982 and 1995 were not challenged  by the  respondent or by any other similar organisations.  That  the   penal  actions were taken against the petrol dealers and  punish ment  were being imposed as per these    guidelines  which  included  imposition of fines.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.   That  the  said guidelines of 1995 were further  revised  in 1998 as in practice it was realised that to be a deterrent  higher  rates  of fines and more onerous conditions needed to  be  intro duced which is being impugned by the petitioner herein. That  the respondent has prepared a comparative statement of penal  actions  under Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 1982, 1995 and 1998  showing  that only one offence has been newly introduced in the  Mar keting  Discipline Guidelines of 1998 i.e. Established  cases  of issuances of fake PUC certificates by dealers having PUC  facilities as Minor Offences, in comparison to the Marketing Discipline guidelines  of 1995. That all other major\/minor offences as  provided  in  the 1998 guidelines were present in  1995  guidelines. However, to ensure honesty and deterrence, more onerous monetari-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     al  penalties  are  prescribed to deter  violations.  Hence,  the  petitioner’s contention that Marketing Guidelines, 1998 as  being  ultra vires, unconstitutional and arbitrary is untenable and  the petition is liable to be dismissed forthwith. Copy of the comparative statement of penal action under Marketing Discipline Guidelines,  1982, and 1995 and 1998 are being annexed and  marked  as  Annexure-C.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.   That  the respondent carried out a Special  Vigilance  Drive  from 29.10.1998 to 2.11.98 to check the malpractices and  irregularities taking place in the retail network, oil company  installations\/Department. Bottling Plants and during transportation  of petroleum  products. That during the said drive, total sales  and supplies  of  1364  retail outlets were inspected  in  50  towns,throughout  the country. That of the total number of retail  out lets  inspected 323 were detected for short supply, 68  were  de tected  for adulteration, there were 29 cases of sample  failure, and in 663 cases there were non availability of basic  facilities like  free air water, toilet facilities, complaint box and  first aid  box. That enroute checking of TTs were carried out  in  1289  cases.  That  of  the total number  checked  irregularities  were etected in 113 cases. That 110 terminals were checked and irreg ularities  were detected in 60 cases. That inspections were  carried out for unauthorised dumps. That of the 13 cases  inspected, irregularities were detected in 4 cases. That copy of the  report of the Special Vigilance Drive from 29.10.98 to 2.11.98 is  being   annexed  hereto  and marked as Annexure-D. That  considering  the  magnitude of irregularities, detected in various retail  outlets, it  is necessary that the impugned guidelines of 1998  be  imple mented in full force, to curb further malpractice and irregulari ties. The 1998 guidelines merely provide more teeth to the existing guidelines to ensure greater enforceability.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.  The  comparative statement of penal action in the three guidelines  of 1982,  1985 and 1998 are referred to in Annexure ‘C’ filed with  Additional affidavit on behalf of the respondent. The same is reproduced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 “COMPARATIVE  STATEMENT OF PENAL ACTIONS UNDER MARKETING DISCIPLINE  GUIDE-\n<\/p>\n
LINES 1982, 1995 AND 1998.\n<\/p>\n
PUNISHMENTS              PUNISHMENTS              PUNISHMENTS \nEXISTING                 EXISTING                 EXISTING\nIN MDG 1982              IN MDG 1995              IN MDG 1998           \n \nMAJOR OFFENCES \n1.  Adulteration  of MS\/HSD (Major Offence) Found during  stock  variation, \nFilter Paper Test (for  MS), density check, Furfural check, Mobile Lab check \netc.,  (Furfural  checks,  Mobile Lab checks and Density  checks  were  not \nintroduced in 1982)\nIf  the sample is certified as adulterated, after laboratory test,  a  show \ncause notice should be served on the dealer.\nIf the explanation of dealer is not satisfactory :\nIf MS is suspected       1. Fine of Rs. 10,000\/-  1. Fine of Rs.1,00,000\/- \nto be adulterated,       along with suspension    and suspension of \nonly sales and           of sales and supplies    sales and supplies \nsupplies of MS to        of all products for      of all products for 45 \nbe suspended till        30 days in the first     days in the first \ncompletion of            instance. instance.      If the fine \ninvestigations. The      2. Fine of Rs. 15,000\/-  is not paid within \nsame in the case         along with suspension    45 days then an \nwith HSD also.           of sales and supplies    extension of \n                         of all products for 60   suspension for \n                         days in the second       another 30 days. \n                         instance.                If the fine is not \n                                                  paid even within \n                                                  the extended \n                                                  period, then the\n1. If the explana-       3. Terminatin of         dealership will be\ntion of the dealer       Dealership in            terminated.\nis not satisfactory,     third instance.          2. Termination of\ndealership is to be                               Dealership in \nterminated even in                                the second \nthe first instance.                               instance.\n2.If adulteration could \nnot  be established \ndespite stock \nvariation was \nfound, sales and \nsupplies of all \nproducts will be \nsuspended for \n15 days.\n2. Short Deliver of Products : \n(Major offence)  If Weights & Measures  seals are tampered with \nSales and supplies       1. Suspension of         1. Suspension of \nof all products is       sales and supplies       sales and supplies \nto be  suspended         of all products for      of all products for \nfor 15 days.             15 days alongwith        30 days alongwith \n                         a fine of Rs. 2,000\/-    a fine of Rs. 50,000\/-\n                         in the first             in the first \n                         instance.                instance.\n                         2. In the second         2. In the second \n                         instance suspension      instance, for \n                         of sales and supplies    dealership is \n                         for 30 days alongwith    to be \n                         a fine of                terminated.\n                         Rs. 5,000\/-.\n                         3. In the third \n                         instance,\n                         dealership \n                         should be\n                         terminated.\nPUNISHMENTS              PUNISHMENTS              PUNISHMENTS \nEXISTING                 EXISTING                 EXISTING      \nIN MDG 1982              IN MDG 1995              IN MDG 1998   \n3.  Provision  of  unauthorised storage facility in case  of  detection  of \nstorage of facilities not approved by the company and\/or not in  accordance \nwith Explosive approval : (Major Offence) \nSales and supplies of all products to be suspended with immediate effect.\nNot included            1. Suspension of         1. Suspension of \n                         sales and supplies       sales and supplies \n                         of all the products      of all the products \n                         for 15 days along        for 15 days along\n                         with  a fine of          with a fine of \n                         Rs. 2,000\/- in the       Rs. 20,000\/- in the\n                         first instance.          first instance.\n                         2. In the second         2. In the second \n                         instance, suspension     instance, suspension \n                         of sales and supplies    of sales and supplies\n                         for 30 days alongwith    for 30 days along\n                         a fine of Rs. 5,000\/-.   with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 50,000\/-\n                         3. In the third          3. In the third \n                         instance, dealership     instance, suspens in \n                         to be terminated.        of sales and supplies \n                                                  for 45 days along \n                                                  with a fine of\n                                                  Rs. 1 lakh.\n4.  Not producing for Inspection Stock\/Sales Registers at the time of  sur-\nprise check (Major Offence)\n1. Warning letter        In the first             1. Suspension of \nto be issued             instance, suitable       sales and supplies \nin the first             warning letter will      of all the products \ninstance.                be issued and sub-       for 15 days along\n                         sequent instances,       with a fine of \n                         sales and supplies       Rs. 20,000\/- in \n                         of all products to       the first \n                         be suspended for         instance.\n                         15 days etc.\n2. Sales and                                      2. In the second\nsupplies of all                                   instance, suspension \nproducts is to                                    of sales and supplies \nbe suspended                                      for 30 days along\nfor 15 days in                                    with a fine of \nthe second                                        Rs. 50,000\/-\ninstance.\n                                                  3. In the third \n                                                  instance, \n                                                  suspension of \n                                                  sales and \n                                                  supplies for \n                                                  45 days along \n                                                  with a fine \n                                                  of Rs 1 lakh.\n5. Unauthorised purchases\/sales\/exchange of MS\/HSD etc. (Major Offence) \nSales and supplies       1. Suspension of         1. Suspension of \nof all products is       sales and supplies       sales and supplies \nto be  suspended         of all products for      of all products for \nfor 15 days.             30 days alongwith        30 days along\n                         a fine of Rs. 5,000\/-    with a fine of \n                         in the  first            Rs. 50,000\/- in the\n                         instance.                first instance.\n                         2. Termination of        2. In the second \n                         dealership in the         instance, fine of \n                         second instance.         Rs. 1 lakh and \n                                                  suspension of  \n                                                  sales and\n                                                  supplies for \n                                                  45 days.\n                                                  3. In the third,\n                                                  dealership to \n                                                  be terminated.\nLUBES: \n6. Established case of selling offspec Lubes, (Major Offence)\nSales and supplies       Suspension of sales      1. Suspension of \nof all products is       and supplies of all      sales  and supplies\nto be suspended          products for 15 days     of all the products \nfor 15 days.             alongwith a fine of      for 15 days along\n                         Rs. 2,000\/- in the       with a fine of \n                         first instance.          Rs. 20,000\/- in the \n                                                  first instance.\n                         In the second            2. In the second\n                         instance, suspension     instance, suspension \n                         of sales and supplies    of sales and supplies \n                         for 30 days alongwith    for 30 days along\n                         a fine of                with a fine of\n                         Rs. 50,000\/-.            Rs. 50,000\/-\n                         Dealership to be         3. In the third \n                         terminated in the        instance, dealership \n                         third instance.          to be terminated.\n7. Unauthorised purchases\/sales\/exchange of Lubes etc. (Major Offence)  \nSales and supplies       1. Suspension of         1. Suspension of \nof all products is       sales and supplies       sales and supplies \nto be suspended          of all products for      of all the products \nfor 15 days.             15 days alongwith        for 15 days along\n                         a fine of Rs.5,000\/-     with a fine of \n                         in the first             Rs. 20,000\/- in the \n                         instance.                first instance.\n                         2. Termination of        2. in the second\n                         dealership in            instance, suspension \n                         the second               of sales and supplies \n                         instance.                for 30 days along\n                                                  with a fine of\n                                                  Rs. 50,000\/-.\n                \n                                                  In the third instance\n                                                  dealership to be\n                                                  terminated.\n\nPUNISHMENTS              PUNISHMENTS              PUNISHMENTS \nEXISTING                 EXISTING                 EXISTING\nIN MDG 1982              IN MDG 1995              IN MDG 1998 \n8. Non-availability of reference density at the time of inspection : \nSales and supplies of all products to be suspended immediately, samples  to \nbe drawn and sent for testing within 24 hrs. In case product meets specifi-\ncation,  sales and  supplies of all products to be resumed with  a  warning \nletter (Major Offence). \nDensity test             In case of               In case of \nwas not                  product being            product being   \nintroduced.              off-spec                 off-spec:\nHence not \napplicable.\n                         1. Fine of  Rs.          1. Fine of Rs. \n                         5,000\/-  alongwith       50,000\/- along with \n                         suspension of            suspension of  sales \n                         sales and supplies       and supplies of all \n                         of all products for      products for 30 days \n                         30 days in the           in the first \n                         first instance.          instance.\n                         2. Termination of        2. Fine of Rs 1 lakh \n                         dealership in the        alongwith suspension \n                         second instance.         of sales  and supplies \n                                                  for 45 days.\n                                                  3. Termination of \n                                                  dealership in \n                                                  third instance.\n9. Mobile Lab Inspection : Clinical tests will be conducted even though the \ndensity is in order. In the event of Density passing but failing in  Clini-\ncal test, (Major Offence)\n\nMobile Lab was           Sales\/supplies to        Action to be taken \nnot introduced.          be suspended after       by the Oil  Co. as            \nHence not                recording of tank        proposed for \napplicable.              dips\/pump meter          established adulteration.\n                         reading etc.             1. Sales and supplies \n                         concerned Oil Co.        are to be suspended\n                         will have to replace     by Mobile Lab in \n                         the off-spec product     the event of failure\n                         before sales             of sample in lab test.\n                         are resumed.             2. SLC and concerned          \n                                                  Oil Co. to be \n                                                  advised.   \n                                                  (State Level \n                                                  Coordinators).\nPUNISHMENTS              PUNISHMENTS              PUNISHMENTS \nEXISTING                 EXISTING                 EXISTING\nIN MDG 1982              IN MDG 1995              IN MDG 1998 \nMINOR OFFENCES:\n1. Overcharging (Minor Offence)\nSales and supplies       1. Suspension of         1. Suspension of \nof all  products to      sales and supplies       sales and supplies \nbe suspended             of all the products      of all the products  \nfor 15 days.             for 15 days along        for 15 days along \n                         with  a fine of          with  a fine of \n                         Rs. 2,000\/- in           Rs. 20,000\/- in \n                         the first instance.      the first instance.\n                         2. In the second         2. In the second \n                         instance, suspension     instance, suspension \n                         of sales and supplies    of sales and supplies \n                         for 30 days along        for 30 days along \n                         with a fine of           with a fine of \n                         Rs. 5,000\/-.             Rs. 50,000\/-.\n                         3. In the third          1. Suspension of \n                         instance,dealership      sales and  supplies \n                         to be terminated.        for 45  days along\n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 1 lakh in the \n                                                  third instance.\n2. Non observance of Govt. Regulations (Minor Offence). For non  observance \nof Govt. Regulation\nSales and supplies       Sales and supplies       1. Suspension of \nof all products to       of all products to       sales and supplies \nbe suspended             be suspended for         of all products for \nfor 15 days.             15 days.                 15 days alongwith \n                         a fine of \n                         Rs.20,000\/- in \n                         the first \n                         instance.\n                                                  2. In the second \n                                                  instance \n                                                  suspension \n                                                  of sales and \n                                                  supplies for \n                                                  30 days along \n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 50,000\/-.\n                                                  3. Suspension of \n                                                  sales and supplies \n                                                  for 45 days along \n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 1 lakh in \n                                                  the third \n                                                  instance.\n3. Non Provision of Free Air, Drinking Water, Radiator Water, Toilet Facil-\nities, Telephone, First Aid, PUC (where applicable) at RO premises, follow-\ning action  to be taken (Minor Offence)\nA warning letter         1. In case facilities    1. Suspension of \nto be issued to          are not provided         sales and supplies \nthe concerned            within 60  days of       of all the products \ndealer and the           written advice, there    for 15 days along \ndealer should be         will be a fine of        with a fine of \ngiven time to provide    Rs. 2,000\/- and 15       Rs. 20,000\/- in \nthe same. In case        days suspension of       the first \nthe dealer fails to      sales and supplies       instance.\nprovide the facilities   of all  products.\nwithin the stipulated \ntime sales and\nsupplies of all \nproducts to  be \nsuspended \nfor 15 days.\n                         2. If facilities are     2. In the second \n                         still not  provided,     instance, suspension \n                         a warning letter is      of sales and supplies \n                         to be issued along       for 30 days along \n                         with a fine of           with a fine of  \n                         Rs. 5,000\/- and          Rs. 50,000\/-. \n                         30 days suspension \n                         of sales and supplies   \n                         of all products.\n                         3. Inspite of the        3. Suspension of      \n                         above if the facilities  sales and supplies \n                         are still not provided   for 45 days along\n                         the  dealership          with fine of \n                         should be                Rs. 1 lakh of  \n                         terminated.              the third \n                                                  instance. \n        \n4. Short Delivery of products.\nIf  W&M  seals are intact but deliveries are below tolerance  limit  (Minor \nOffence)\nSales and supplies       Sales and supplies       Sales and supplies\nshould be stopped        should be stopped        should stopped from \nfrom the Dispensing      from the Dispensing      the Dispensing Unit \nUnit till re-verific-    Unit till re-verific-    till re-verification  \nation is carried out     ation is carried out     is carried out by \nby Weights &             by Weights &             Weights \nMeasures Dept.           Measures Dept.           & Measures Dept. \nIf deliveries are proved to be below tolerance limit:\n  \n                                                  1. Suspension of \n                                                  sales and supplies \n                                                  of all products for \n                                                  15 days along\n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 20,000\/- in \n                                                  the first \n                                                  instance.\n                                                  2. Suspension of \n                                                  sales and supplies \n                                                  for 30 days along \n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 50,000\/- in \n                                                  the second \n                                                  instance.\n                                                  3. Suspension of \n                                                  sales and supplies \n                                                  for 45 days along \n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 1 lakh in \n                                                  the third \n                                                  instance.\n5.  RUDE BEHAVIOUR\nEstablished cases of discourteous behaviour by dealers and\/or his staff, non \nproducing of complaints register, (Minor Offence):\nThis cause was           Penalty of Rs.2,000\/-    1. Fine of Rs. 10,000\/- \nnot introduced.          for the first offence,   in the  first instance.\n                         and Rs. 5,000\/- for      2. Fine of Rs. 30,000\/- \n                         every subsequent         in the second instance.\n                         offence. Besides,        3. Suspension of \n                         a suitable  warning      sales and supplies \n                         letter will be issued    for 45 days along \n                         to the dealer by         with a fine of Rs. 1 \n                         the concerned Oil Co.    lakh in the \n                         third instance.\n6.  Established  cases of a issuance of fake PUC  certificates  by  dealers \nhaving PUC facilities (Minor Offence)\nNot available.           Not available.           1. Suspension of \n                                                  sales and supplies \n                                                  of all the products \n                                                  for 15 days along \n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 20,000\/- in \n                                                  the first \n                                                  instance.\n                                                  2. In the second \n                                                  instance, \n                                                  suspension of \n                                                  sales and supplies \n                                                  for 30 days along \n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 50,000\/-.\n                                                  3. In the third \n                                                  instance, \n                                                  dealership to \n                                                  be terminated.\n7.  Sale of LVI (Low Viscosity Index) Lubes from Retail Outlet  (Minor  Of-\nfences)\nIf  the  dealer is found stocking\/selling LVI Lubes at\/through  the  Retail \nOutlet\nIf the explanation       1. Fine of Rs. 5,000\/-   1. Suspension of \nof the dealer is         along with suspension    sales supplies of \nnot satisfactory,        of sales and supplies    all the products for \nsales and supplies       of all products for      ples of all the \nof all products to be    15 days in the first     products for 15 \nsuspended for 15         instance.                days  along with \ndays and the dealer                               a fine of Rs 20,000 \nshould be suitably                                in the first \ncautioned through                                 instance. \na warning letter.\n \n                         2. Termination of        2. In the second \n                         dealership in the        instance, suspension \n                         second instance.         of sales and  supplies \n                                                  for 30 days along \n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 50,000\/-.\n                                                  3. In the third \n                                                  instance, \n                                                  dealership to \n                                                  be terminated.\n \n8. Overcharging in authorised selling prices of Lubes (Minor Offence)\nDealer to be advised to charge correct prices:\nSales and supplies       1. Suspension of         1. Suspension of\nof all products to be    Sales and supplies       sales and supplies \nsuspended for            of all products for      of all products for \n15 days.                 15 days along with       15 days along with \n                         a fine of  Rs. 2,000\/-   a  fine of \n                         in the first             Rs.20,000\/- in the \n                         instance.                first instance.\n                         2. In the second         2. In the second \n                         instance, suspension     instance, suspension \n                         of sales and supplies    of sales and supplies \n                         for 30 days along with   for 30 days along with \n                         a fine of Rs. 5,000\/-.   a fine of Rs. 50,000\/-.\n                         3. In the third          3. In the third \n                         instance, dealership     instance, dealership \n                         to be terminated.        to be terminated.\n9. Sale  of Lubes through Non calibrated measures (Minor Offence)\nNot included             1. Suspension of         1. Suspension of \n                         sales and supplies       sales and supplies \n                         of all products for      of all products for \n                         15 days along with       15 days along with \n                         a fine of Rs. 2,000\/-    a fine of Rs.20,000\/-\n                         in the first             in the first \n                         instance.                instance.\n                         2. In the second         2. In the second \n                         instance, suspension     instance, suspension \n                         of sales and supplies    of sales and supplies \n                         for 30 days along with   for 30 days along \n                         a fine of Rs. 5,000\/-.   with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 50,000\/-.\n                         3. In the third          3. In the third \n                         instance, dealership     instance, dealership\n                         to be terminated.        to be terminated.\n10.   Violation\/Non   observance  of  Govt.   Regulations   and   operating \nguidelines\/instructions if any, on sale and distribution of SKO.\nFor non observance  of Govt. Regulation. (Minor Offence)\nSales\/Supplies of        Sales and supplies       Sales\/supplies of \nSKO to be suspe-         to be suspended for      SKO to be suspended \nnded (if necessary       15 days, on each         (if necessary in  \nin consultation with     occurrence.              consultation with \nlocal Civil Supplies                              local Civil Supplies \nAuthorities)                                      Authorities).\nSuspension of sales and \nsupplies of SKO for 15 \ndays.\n                                                  1. Suspension of \n                                                  sales and supplies \n                                                  of SKO for 30 days \n                                                  along with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 50,000\/- in the \n                                                  first instance.\n                                                  2. In the second \n                                                  instance, suspension \n                                                  of sales and supplies \n                                                  for 45 days along \n                                                  with a fine of \n                                                  Rs. 1 lakh.\n                                                  3. In the third \n                                                  instance, dealership \n                                                  to be terminated.\n\n11. Overcharging (Minor Offence)\nDealer to be advised to charge correct price\nSales\/Supplies of        1. In the first          1. Fine of Rs.50,000\/-\nSKO to be suspended      instance, sales and      along with suspension \n(if necessary in         supplies of all          of sales and supplies of \nconsultation with        products to be           all products for 30 days\nlocal Civil Supplies     suspended for 15         in the first instance.\nAuthorities) Suspension  days along with a \nof Sales and supplies    fine of Rs. 2,000\/-. \nof SKO for 15 days.\n                         2. In the second         2. In the second \n                         instance, sales and      instance, suspension \n                         supplies of all products of sales and supplies \n                         to be suspended for      for 45 days along with \n                         a period of 30 days      a fine of  Rs. 1 lakh.\n                         along with a fine of \n                         Rs. 5,000\/-. \n                         3. In the third          3. In the third  \n                         instance, the            instance, dealership  \n                         dealership  should       to be terminated.\n                         be terminated.\n12. Short Deliver (Minor Offence)\nSales\/Supplies of        Sales\/Supplies of SKO    Sales\/Supplies of SKO \nSKO to be suspe-         to be suspended (if      to be suspended (if\nnded (if necessary       necessary in consul-     necessary in consultation \nin consultation with     tation with local Civil  with local  Civil\nlocal Civil Supplies     Supplies Authorities)    Supplied Authorities).\nAuthorities) Susp-       for 15 days\nension of sales and \nsupplies of SKO \nfor 15 days.\n                \n                                             1. Suspension of sales \n                                             and supplies of SKO \n                                             for 30 days along with \n                                             a fine of Rs.50,000\/-\n                                             in the first instance.\n                                             2. In the second \n                                             instance, suspension \n                                             of sales and supplied \n                                             for 45 days along \n                                             with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.\n                                             3. In the third instance, \n                                             dealership to be \n                                             terminated.\n     13.  Unauthorised  purchase\/sales\/exchange of SKO or any  product \n     which could be used as a substitute for this product.\nSales and supplies  1. Fine of Rs. 25,000\/-  Unauthorised purchase\/sale\/ \nof all products     along with suspension    exchange of SKO or any\nto be suspended     of sales and supplies    product which could \nfor 15 days         of all products for      be used as a substitute for \n                    15 days in the first     this product or diversion or \n                    instance.                stock variation.\n                                             Seek dealer's\n                                             explanation within 7 days. \n                                             In case the explanation\n                                             is not satisfactory :\n                    2. Termination of        1. Fine of Rs. 50,000\/-\n                    dealership in the        along with suspension of\n                    second instance.         sales and supplies of all\n                                             products for 30 days in \n                                             the first instance.\n                                             2. In the second instance, \n                                             suspension of sales \n                                             and supplies for 45 \n                                             days along with a \n                                             fine of Rs. 1 lakh.\n                                             3. Termination of dealership \n                                             in the third instance.\n \n\n\n17.  The  final  report  of  Special Vigilance  Drive  from  20.10.1998  to \n2.11.1998  is also filed along with the affidavit which may also be  quoted \nas under :- \n  \n\n\n     \"FINAL  REPORT  ON  SPECIAL  VIGILANCE  DRIVE  FROM  29.10.98  TO \n     2.11.98. \n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     1.   As  directed  by the Hon’ble Minister (P &  NG),  a  Special  Vigilance Drive was launched throughout the country from 29.10.98  to  2.11.98. Preside to the drive, a meeting of  CMDs,  Directors  (Marketing) and Executive Directors (Vigilance) of Oil Companies, RLC’s and SLC’s was convened by Additional Secretary (MOP & NG)  on   26.10.98  and  the  detailed action plan was given  to  them  for  conducting this Special Drive.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   All Chief Secretaries and Police Chiefs of States and  Union   Territories  were  requested to provide necessary  assistance  in   conducting the raids.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   During  the  drive surprise checks\/raids were  conducted  at  Retail Outlets, LPG Distributorships, SKO Dealerships, Oil Company Terminal\/Depots, LPG Bottling Plants, enroute checking of Tank  Trucks  and at unauthorised dumps. The drive was conducted in  50towns throughout the country.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   Due  to various court cases pending in various  High  Courts against the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 1998, it was decided  to  take action against the erring Dealers\/Distributors  in  line   with the previous Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG 1995).\n<\/p>\n
     5.   The salient features of the drive are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      Retail Outlets\n<\/p>\n
     ————–\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  Total No. of ROs inspected         1364\n     (b)  No. of cases of short delivery \n     detected                            323<\/span>\n     (c)  No. of cases of suspected \n     adulteration detected                68<\/span>\n     (excluding 8 sample failures)\n     (d)  No. of cases of sample failures      29\n     (e)  Non provision of air facility \n     despite warning                       1<\/span>\n     (f)  Non availability of \n     basic facilities:\n     (i)  Free air                       158<\/span>\n     (ii) Water                           21<\/span>\n     (iii)Toilet facilities              209<\/span>\n     (iv) Complaint Book                 148<\/span>\n     (v)  First Aid Box                  127<\/span>\n     Action Taken\n     ------------\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
     1. Sales and supplies of all products were suspended in line with   Marketing  Discipline Guidelines (MDG), 1995 where product  adulteration was suspected.\n<\/p>\n
     2.  Delivery through dispensing pumps were suspended where  short delivery was detected, till reverification.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Oil Companies were advised by SLC’s  for issuing warning letters  to the Dealers for providing the basic facilities.\n<\/p>\n
     4. State-wise list of irregularities detected and non-availabili ty of facilities is also enclosed as Annexure-I and II.\n<\/p>\n
     5.  The  details of sales and supplies  suspended  for  suspected adulteration is as under :\n<\/p>\n
     State\/UT            IOC  BPC  HPC  IBP  Total\n      \n     Andhra Pradesh           5    1         6\n     Assam               1                   1<\/span>\n     Bihar               1    1    5         7\n     Delhi                    1              1<\/span>\n     Goa                      4    1         5\n     Gujarat             5    1    1    3    10\n     Haryana             1         1         2\n     Karnatka            5    3    5    1    14\n     Madhya Pradesh      4    3    3    1    11\n     Maharashtra         4    3         2    9\n     Nagaland            1                   1<\/span>\n     Orissa              1                   1<\/span>\n     Punjab              2    2    2    1    7\n     Sikkim              1    1         1    3\n     Tamilnadu           1    3    9    2    15\n     Uttar Pradesh       2    1              3<\/span>\n     West Bengal              2              2<\/span>\n      \n     Total               29   30   28   11   98\n     II   LPG Distributorships:\n     --------------------\n     Total number of LPG Distributors\n     inspected                               :    626\n     Irregularities detected:\n     Diversion of domestic LPG Cylinders     :    61862\n     Defective cylinders noticed             :    2438\n     Action Taken\n    ------------\n \n\n     1.  Action  in  line with MDG was taken against  the  erring  LPG  Distributors.\n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     2.  All  the defective cylinders were sent back to  the  Bottling Plants for rectification.\n<\/p>\n
     3.  State-wise details of irregularities detected is enclosed  as   Annexure-III.\n<\/p>\n
      III. SKO Wholesalers:\n<\/p>\n
     —————-\n<\/p>\n
    No. of inspections carried out          :    430\n     No. of cases where irregularities \n     were detected                           :    16\n     No. of Dealers found not adhering \n     to upliftment schedule                  :    225\n     Action Taken\n     ------------\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
     1. Sales and supplies were suspended for 15 days in line with MDG for irregularities detected.\n<\/p>\n
     2.  Warning  letters were issued to the Dealers for  adhering  to  upliftment schedule.\n<\/p>\n
     3. A State-wise list of SKO\/LDO Dealers where irregularities were  detected is enclosed as Annexure-IV.\n<\/p>\n
      IV.  Enroute checking of TTs\n<\/p>\n
     ———————–\n<\/p>\n
     Total number of TTs Checked        :    1289\n     Number of irregularities detected  :    113\n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     During the enroute checking of TTs, irregularities like  improper  sealing of TTs, improper fittings, non welding of domes and  seal  Nos. not tallying with invoice etc. were detected.\n<\/p>\n
     Action Taken:\n<\/p>\n
     ————\n<\/p>\n
     The   matter   was  reported  to  the   concerned   Oil   Company  Depots\/Terminals for corrective action.\n<\/p>\n
     State-wise  details of enroute checks carried out is enclosed  as   Annexure-V.\n<\/p>\n
      V.   Checks at Terminals:\n<\/p>\n
     ——————-\n<\/p>\n
     No. of inspections carried out          :    110\n     No. of irregularities detected          :    60\n     No. of cases of improper\/loose sealing  :    47\n     No. of cases of over\/under filling      :    12\n     No. of cases of improper fitting        :    1\n     Action Taken\n     ------------\n \n\n     All Location Incharge were advised to take corrective action. \n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     State-wise list of Terminal\/Depots where raids were conducted and   irregularities detected is enclosed as Annexure -VI.\n<\/p>\n
      VI.  Checks at LPG Bottling Plants\n<\/p>\n
     —————————–\n<\/p>\n
     No. of Bottling Plants inspected   :    40\n     No. of cylinders checked           :    13420\n     No. of defective cylinders found   :    701\n     Percentage of defective cylinders  :    5.2%\n     Action Taken\n     ------------\n     All  the defective cylinders were send back for  refilling\/proper  sealing.  The  details of PLG Plants inspected and irregularities  detected    is enclosed as per Annexure-VII.    VII. Checks at unauthorised Dumps:-\n     ----------------------------\n     Total number of inspection \n     carried out                        :    13\n     Irregularities detected            :    4\n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     In all the cases, FIRs were registered. Details of raids  carried out at Dumps is enclosed as Annexure-VIII.\n<\/p>\n
     To  conclude, it can be observed from the SLC’s  reports that  more  number  of  irregularities were detected wherever SLC’s   were  enthusiastic  and fully committed for the cause of the  drive.  The  enthusiasm  evinced  by SLC’s  Maharashtra,  Goa,  Gujarat,  Madhya  Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and  Sikkim  needs to be commended.\n<\/p>\n
     Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
     (M.S. Ramachandran) <\/p>\n
     Executive Director”\n<\/p>\n
18.  The  reading of the above will lay down the principles which  necessitated  the framing of the guidelines of 1982, 1995 and  1998  respectivel.There  is  no challenge to the guidelines of 1982 though the  challenge  is made to 1995 guidelines along with 1998 guidelines in these two  petitions.The purpose of framing the guidelines was to put an end to malpractice  and remedy the breaches which were detected from time to time and are  referred to  in the vigilance report which has already been reproduced. It was  considered  imperative on the basis of the facts as enumerated above that  the guidelines had to be framed to check malpractice and there is no  arbitrary exercise of power. The State Machinery is provided ample discretion in  the matter  and clause 43 of the agreement vests in the Authorities  powers  to remedy breaches and there is no violation of the same. In Peerless  General Finance  and Investment Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Reserve Bank of India  , the Supreme Court considered the powers of Reserve Bank  of India in issuance of directions providing for manner in which  the
\ndeposits received by the residuary non-banking companies were to be  deposited by them and manner in which such deposits are to be disclosed in their balance sheet or books of account and whether such directions were  covered under  Section 45-K(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act. Paragraph 37,  68,72 and 73 read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “37.Paragraph 5 of the directions relates to the minimum rate  of return fixed at 10% per annum for a deposit with a maturity of 10      years.  It  is a matter of common knowledge that in  the  present  times  even  the public sector corporations and banks  and  other  financial  and non-financial companies pay interest at much  more higher rates ranging from 14 to 18%. Thus according to the  above  scheme the respondent companies and the other doing such business
\n     can easily earn a profit of 4 to 5% on their investments. In case   of  a  request  of the depositors for repayment  of  the  deposit  before maturity then the amount payable by the company by way  of nterest  etc., shall be 2% less than what could have been  ordinarily paid by the company by way of interest if the deposit  had run  the full comtractual period. However, the question of  repay ment before maturity or after how many years will depend entirely  on  the  terms and conditions of the contract  of  such  deposit.  Paragraph  12 of the directions of 1987 enjoins upon the  company to    sclosed as liabilities in its books of accounts and  balance sheets the total amount of deposits received together with inter     est, bonus, premium or other advantage,accrued or payable to  the  depositors.  Under Clause (a) to the explanation to clause  3  of    paragraph ‘6’ “Aggregate Amounts of Liabilities” shall mean total   amount  of  deposits received together  with  interest,  premium,   bonus or other advantage by whatever name called, accrued on  the  amount  of deposits according to the terms of contract. Thus  the  company is required to deposit or invest the aggregate amounts of  its liabilities having accrued on the amount of deposits  accord ing  to  the terms of contract. Without going  into  the  figures  shown  in the various charts, it is clear that if the  directions  contained in paragraphs 6 and 12 of the directions of 1987 are to
\n     be carried out, the companies are not left to utilise any  amount  of  the deposits as working capital to meet the expenses. In  our  view the Reserve Bank is right in taking the stand that if  these  companies want to do their business, they should invest their own  working capital and find such resources elsewhere with which  the  Reserve Bank has no concern. If we look at the Annual Report  and  Accounts  of  Pear less for the Years 1988, 1989 and  1990  it  is  clear  that it had conducted its business following the  impugned directions  of 1987 and still had earned substantial  profits  in  these Years. It is clear that Peerless is a company having estab lished as back as in 1932 and had substantial funds to invest the
\n     entire  amount  of deposits and had met the expenses out  of  its accumulated profits of the past Years. This shows that the  business  can  be run and profit can be earned even  after  complying with the impugned directions of 1987 issued by the Reserve  Bank. It  is  not the concern of this court to find out as  to  whether  actuarial  method  of  accounting or any other  method  would  be feasible or possible to adopt by the companies while carrying out the conditions contained in paragraphs 6 and 12 of the directions  of  1987. The companies are free to adopt any mode of  accounting   permissible  under the law but it is certain that they will  have  to  follow the entire terms and conditions contained in  the  im pugned  directions of 1987 including those contained in  paras  6 and 12. It is not the function of the Court to amend and lay down
\n     some  other  directions and the High Court was totally  wrong  in doing  so. The function of the Court is not to advise in  matters  relating to financial and economic policies for which bodies like  Reserve Bank are fully competent. The Court can only strike  down  some or entire directions issued by the Reserve Bank in case  the  Court  is satisfied that the directions were wholly  unreasonable  or  violative of any provisions of the Constitution or any  statute.  It would be hazardous and risky for the courts to treat  anunknown  path  and should leave such task to the  expert  bodies. This  court has repeatedly said that matters of  economic  policy  ought to be left to the Government. While dealing with the validity of an order passed on September 30,1977 fixing a retail price  of mustard oil not exceeding Rs. 10%- per kilogram in exercise of
\n     powers  conferred  by Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities  Act,  a   Bench of 7 Judges of this Court in M\/s. Prag Ice & Oil Mills  Vs.   Union of India and Nav Bharat Oil Mills Vs. Union of India :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “We  have listened to long arguments directed at showing us  that producers and sellers of oil in various parts of the country will   suffer so that they would give up producing or dealing in mustard   oil.  It  was urged that this would, quits  naturally,  have  its  repercussions on consumers for whom mustard oil will become  even  more scarce than ever ultimately. We do not think that it is  the   function  of this Court or of any Court to sit in  judgment  over   such  matters of economic policy as must necessarily be  left  to   the  Government of the day to decide. Many of them, as a  measure
\n     of price fixation must necessarily be, are matters of  prediction   of  ultimate results on which even experts can seriously err  and   doubtlessly  differ.  Courts  can certainly not  be  expected  to   decide them without even the aid of experts.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “68. Looking from operational pragmatism, the restrictions though apparently  appears to be harsh in form, in its systematic  work ing,  it would inculcate discipline in the  business  management, ubserve public confidence in the ability of the company to honor the contractual liability and assure due repayment at maturity of the  amount  deposited together with interest  etc.  Without  any  impediment.  In other words, the restrictions in paragraph  6  of  the directions intended to elongate the twin purposes, viz. habit  of thrift among the needy without unduly jeopardising the  interest  of the employees of the companies and the R.N.B.Cs.  Working  system   itself  in  addition  to  safety  and  due  payment   of
\n     depositor’s money. True as contended by Shri Chatterji that there arises  corresponding obligation to pay higher amount of  commission  to its agents and the commitment should be  kept  performed and the confidence enthused in the agents. But it is the look out  of the businessman. The absence of ceiling on the rate of commission  would give choice between the company and its agents  to  a  contract  in this regard and has freedom to manage its  business.  The R.N.B.Cs. are free to incur such expenses and organise  their   business  as they desire including payment of commission as  they think  expedient. But the subscribers\/depositor liability,  under no  cicumstances,  would be in jeopardy and the  directions  were  designed  to ensure that the interest of the  subscribers\/deposi tors is secured at all times, prescribing investment of an  equal
\n     sum  to the total liability to the subscribers\/depositors.  Para graph 12 is only a bridge between the depositors and the  promise  held  out and the contract executed in furtherance thereof  as  a  monitoring my cardium to keep the heart in paragraph 6 functioning without  any hiatus. It is settled law that  regulation  includes
\n     total prohibition in a given case where the mischief to be  remedied warrants total prohibition. Vide Narendra Kumar Vs. Union of India . But the directions  do  not  do that but act as a siphon between the  subcriber\/depositor and  the  business itself. Therefore, they are  neither  palpably   arbitrary  nor  unjust nor unfair. The mechanism evolved  in  the  directions  is  foolproof,  as directed by this  court  in  first  Peerless  case, to secure the interest of the depositors as  well   capable  to monitor the business management of every R.N.B.C.  It  also  thereby,  protects interest of  the  employees\/field  Staff
\n     commission  agent etc. as on permanent basis  overcoming  initial  convulsions.  It  was intended, in the best possible  manner,  to   subserve the interest of all without putting any prohibitions  in  the  ability of a company to raise the deposit, even in  the  ab sence  of  any adequate paid up capital or reserve fund  or  such  pre-commitment of the owner, to secure such deposits.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “72.  Para 19 of the directions empowers the RBI to  extend  time   for  compliance  or  to exempt a particular company  or  a  class   thereof  from ail or any of the provisions, either  generally  or  for  a  specified  period subject to such conditions  as  may  be  imposed. Power to exempt would include the power to be  exercised  from time to time as exigencies warrant. An individual company or  the  class thereof has to place necessary and  relevant  material   facts necessary and relevant material facts before the R.B.I.  of  the  hardship and the need for relief. A criticism of  arbitrariness  or  unreasonableness may not be a ground to undo  what  was   conceived best in the public interest. What is best is not always
\n     discernible. The wisdom of any choice may be disputed or  condemned.  Mere errors of Government are not subject to  judicial  re view.  The legislative remedy may be ineffective to mitigate  the  evil  or fail to achieve its purpose, but it is the price  to  be  paid for the trial and error inherent in the economic legislative  efforts to grapple with obstinate social issues. It is proper for  interference  in  judicial  review, only,  when  the  directions,  regulations or restrictions are palpably arbitrary,  demonstrably   irrelevant  or  discriminatory.  Exercise of power  then  can  be
\n     declared to be void under Art. 13 of the Constitution. So long  as  the  exercise of power is broadly within the zone of  reasonableness,  the  Court would not substitute its judgment for  that  of  legislation or its agent as to matters within their prudence  and  power.  The Court does not supplement the feel of the experts  by  its own values.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     73.  It is settled law that so long as the power is traceable  to  the  statute,  mere omission to recite the   provisions  does  not   denude  the power of the legislature or rule making authority  to  make  the regulations, nor considered without authority  or  law.  Sec.  114  of the Evidence Act draws s tatutory  presumption that official acts are regularly performed and reached  satisfac-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     tion on consideration of relevant facts. The absence of  reitera tion  of objectives satisfaction in the preamble as of one  under  Sec. 45L  does  not denude the powers, the r.B.I.  admittedly  has    under  Sec.  45L,  to justify the actions. though  Sec.  45L  was
\n     neither  expressly  stated nor mentioned in the preamble  of  the  directions  of the required recitation of satisfaction of  objec  tive  facts  to issue the directions from the facts  and  circumstances  it is demonstrated that the R.B.I had such  satisfaction   in  its  considerations  of its power under Sec.  45L,  when  the  directions  were  issued. Even otherwise Sec.  45K  itself  is sufficient to uphold the directions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19.  The  Court held in paragraph 73 as referred to above that so  long  as the  power is traceable to the statute, mere omission to recite the  provision does not denude the power of the legislature or rule making  authority to make the regulations and as such the impugned directions were held to be within the powers of Reserve Bank of India to provide tardy, stable,  identifiable  and  monitorable method of operations  by  Residuary  Non-Banking Companies.\n<\/p>\n
20.  In  the present case it is contended by the petitioners that  no  such power is provided in any of the statutes controlling the sale and distribution  of petrol products but at the same time one does not have to look  to the  statutes particularly when the parties have chosen to enter into  contractual obligations. The power has to be traced from the agreement executed between the parties. Clause 43 of the agreement clearly spells out  that the dealer shall observe and perform all directions or rules given or  made from  time  to time by the Corporation for the proper carrying  on  of  the
\ndealership  of the Corporation. Similarly, clause 56 provides  more  powers for action when there is a breach of any of the covenants and  stipulations contained in the agreement and there is failure to remedy such breach  with in  the period of receipt of the notice by the Corporation in this  regard.In  the  subsequent judgment between the same parties in  Reserve  Bank  of India  and others Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company  Ltd. and  another  , the Supreme  Court  further elaborated  the  law  on the subject and reiterated  the  findings  earlier recorded that the Reserve Bank was within its powers to issue direction and the  same were not ultravirus the powers conferred on the bank  by  Section
\n45K of the Reserve Bank of India Act.\n<\/p>\n
21.  The  learned counsel for the petitioners have not denied  that  directions could be issued provided the powers are vested in the authorities  in terms  of the Agreement entered into between the parties. Clause 43, it  is contended, does not confer any such powers to impose major and minor penalties particularly when such action violates the rule of law and  principles of natural justice as no opportunity is provided to the petitioners to show cause. This argument is misconceived as more drastic remedy such as  termination  is provided in the various statutes and the various causes  of  the
\nagreement such as clauses 43 and 56 provide ample powers in the respondents to frame the guidelines as have been framed in the present case. The  read ing of the punishment as prescribed for major and minor penalties could not show that the explanation of the dealer is always called for and action  is only  taken when it is not found to be satisfactory. In  appropriate  cases the  members  of  the petitioner association can also ask  for  a  personal hearing  and the same cannot be denied. The mere absence of the quantum  of fines  in various statutes will not make the agreement between the  parties
\nredundant on the ground that no power is vested in the authorities to frame  such guidelines. The guidelines of 1982 and 1995 have operated  satisfactorily and no one came forward on an earlier occasion to impugn those  guidelines  as  the  basic purpose for framing of the guidelines  was  to  check adulteration,  provide better service to the customers, to check  violation f environmental health and safety regulations.\n<\/p>\n
22.  The writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  is an extra-ordinary remedy and cannot be used for enforcement of  contractual disputes  and remedies which can be resorted to on the basis of the  agreement  executed  between the parties. Paragraph 67 of the agreement  may  be reproduced as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “67.  Any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever  or  regarding any right, liability, act, omission or account of any  of  the  parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this  Agreement  shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the  Direction  Marketing of the Corporation, or of some Officer of the  Corporation  who may be nominated by the Director Marketing. The  Dealer  will not be entitled to raise any objection to any such  arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator is an Officer of the Corporation  or  that  he has to deal with the matters  to  which  the contract  relates or that in the course of his duties or  differ ences.  In  the  event of the arbitrator to whom  the  matter  is originally  referred being transferred or vacating his office  or being  unable  to act for any reason the  Director  Marketing  as   aforesaid  at  the time of such transfer, vacation of  office  or   inability to act, shall designate another person to act as  arbi trator  in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Such  person,  shall  be entitled to proceed with the reference  from  the
\n     point at which it was left by his predecessor. It is also at term of this contract that no person other than the Director Marketing  or a person nominated by such Director Marketing of the  Corporation  as aforesaid shall act as arbitrator here under. The  award of  the  arbitrator so appointed shall be final,  conclusive  and   binding  on all parties to the Agreement, subject to  the  Provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, or any statutory modification   of or re-enactment thereof and the rules made thereunder and  for the  time being in force shall apply to the arbitration  proceed-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ings under this clause.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
23.  The  above  provision  clearly stipulates that in case  there  is  any dispute  or  difference arising between the parties  regarding  any  right, liability or in relation to the agreement shall be referred to arbitration. The  petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to this remedy and  cannot impugn  the  guidelines  which admittedly are framed on the  basis  of  the powers vested in the respondents by the agreement entered into between  the parties and which are framed for public good.\n<\/p>\n
24.  For the aforesaid reasons there is no merit in the writ petitions. The same  are,  accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. There  will  be  no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 VAD Delhi 365, 81 (1999) DLT 400 Author: C Nayar Bench: C Nayar ORDER C.M. Nayar, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of two petitions, C.W.P. No. 2876\/98 and C.W.P. No. 5753\/98 as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-140757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi Petrol Dealer Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-18T23:15:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"78 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T23:15:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999\"},\"wordCount\":12431,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999\",\"name\":\"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T23:15:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-18T23:15:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"78 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999","datePublished":"1999-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T23:15:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999"},"wordCount":12431,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999","name":"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T23:15:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-petrol-dealer-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-18-august-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Petrol Dealer Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 August, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140757","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140757"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140757\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}