Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi vs M/S Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1849 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) NO. 16767 OF 2021)

SRI ABHYUDAYA KUMAR SHAHI .….APPELLANT(S)

VS.

M/S. BHARAT PRADHAN FILLING CENTRE ……RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

In this appeal, the appellant, said to be the Chief

Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Divisional Office, Indian

Oil Corporation Limited, Gorakhpur has questioned the order

dated 30.09.2021, as passed by the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3938 of

2021, whereby the High Court directed that the appeal filed

by the applicant (respondent herein) shall be decided by

the Dispute Resolution Panel, Gorakhpur within a month;

failing which, the present petitioner shall appear in-

person before the Court on the next date.

The relevant background aspects of the matter are

that the present respondent preferred a writ petition

bearing No. 26456 of 2020 in the High Court questioning the Signature Not Verified

validity Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.03.10 of an order dated 27.11.2020 whereby, its 18:05:38 IST Reason:

dealership was terminated while giving an option to

1 challenge the termination order by way of an appeal within

30 days along with fees in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakhs).

The High Court, in its order dated 19.01.2021 in the

said writ petition, formed an opinion that the order in

question requiring pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs) was not sustainable and hence, directed that if

the appeal was preferred within 10 days, the Appellate

Authority would consider the same without insisting upon

pre-deposit as per the amended Marketing Discipline

Guidelines, 2012. The appeal having not been decided, the

respondent filed the aforesaid Contempt Application bearing

No. 3938 of 2021.

In the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 in the said

contempt application, the High Court, even after taking

note of the fact that the procedure for hearing of the

appeals had changed under the new guidelines, proceeded to

direct that the appeal filed by the present respondent be

decided by the Dispute Resolution Panel, as per the

guidelines existing on the date of filing of appeal; and

even directed the present appellant to remain personally

present before the Court, if the appeal was not so decided.

On 29.10.2021, after examining the contents of the

order impugned and the material placed on record, this

Court, while issuing notice in the petition leading to this

2 appeal [SLP(C) No. 16767 of 2021], stayed the operation and

effect of the impugned order dated 30.09.2021.

It appears that in the meantime, the respondent had

also filed another writ petition, being Writ-C No.23870 of

2021, challenging the process whereby its appeal had been

forwarded to the Appellate Authority at the Head Office,

instead of the Dispute Resolution Forum.

Now, by way of an application (I.A. 169869 of 2021),

it has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that

after passing of the aforesaid order dated 29.10.2021 by

this Court, the High Court had finally disposed of the said

writ petition (No. 23870 of 2021) by its order dated

09.11.2021.

In the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2021, the High

Court took note of the admitted fact that during the

pendency of appeal, the appellate forum had changed in view

of the amendments in the guidelines; and the Dispute

Resolution Forum, as provided earlier, was not in

existence. The High Court also took note of the fact that

there was no challenge to the amended guidelines, which

provide that the Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited

shall be the Appellate Authority. Thus, the High Court

found no ground to issue mandamus so as to place the appeal

filed by the present respondent before the Dispute

Resolution Forum. The High Court also took note of the

3 submission made by the present respondent (writ petitioner)

that it would be giving up the claim to place the appeal

before the erstwhile forum and agreed for disposal of the

appeal as per the amended guidelines. While disposing of

the writ petition, the High Court also provided for

expeditious proceedings by the Appellate Authority. It has

further been pointed out that the Appellate Authority

indeed examined the appeal and heard the parties on

16.12.2021.

In view of the subsequent events above-mentioned, it

is but clear that the present respondent has given up its

insistence for decision of the appeal by way of erstwhile

mechanism, and rightly so because, even if the respondent

(writ petitioner) had the right of consideration of appeal,

it had no corresponding right to insist for consideration

of the appeal by a forum that was no longer in existence.

We need not dilate further on the matter. Suffice it

to observe that the impugned order dated 30.09.2021, which

was even otherwise questionable for being not in conformity

with law, has lost its relevance and even the contempt

proceedings in the High Court in Contempt Application

(Civil) No. 3938 of 2021 are rendered redundant.

Therefore, it appears just and appropriate that the

impugned order dated 30.09.2021 be set aside and the said

contempt proceedings be also closed.

4 Accordingly, and in view of the above, this appeal is

allowed; the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 is set aside;

and the proceedings before the High Court in Contempt

Application (Civil) No. 3938 of 2021 stand closed.

No costs.

...................J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI)

...................J. (VIKRAM NATH)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 07, 2022.

5