2

raised therein may be read as part and parcel of the present

application and are not being repeated herein for the sake of

brevity.

3. The present application is being filed by the Petitioner herein for

placing on record certain facts and documents which were part of

the voluminous records before the learned Single Judge and

Division Bench. The Petitioner also seeks to rely on certain

additional documents which were made available only after the

filing of the present SLP and are crucial for adjudication of the

present matter.

4. The Petitioner is relying upon the standard format Petrol/HSD

Pump Dealer Agreement executed between a Retail Outlet Dealer

RO Dealer and Respondent No. 1. The 3 Respondent Oil

Marketing Companies viz. OMCs use

the same standard format agreement for all their dealerships, with

some variations. The clauses of the agreement are pertinent to

determine the relationship between the parties. A true and typed

copy of a Dealership Agreement dated 10.02.1999 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-1 [Pg. No. 22 to 54].

5. The Petitioner submits that the RO Dealers comply with all Central

and State laws, standing orders and regulations governing all

dimensions and aspects of the business of sale of petroleum

products, including but not limited to the Motor Spirit and High-
 3

Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of

Malpractices) Order, 2005. A true and correct copy of the Motor

Spirit and High-Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution

and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 issued by the Ministry

of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-2 [Pg. No. 55 to 64].

6. The RO Dealers and operations of the petrol pumps, in particular

the dispensing units (which are equipment owned and installed by

the Respondent OMCs) are subject to strict regulation under the

Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the rules framed thereunder. It has

been affirmed by way of several RTI replies and letters from the

concerned officers of the Legal Metrology Department that penal

actions for any proved violations under the Legal Metrology Act,

2009 are to be dealt under the provisions of the said Act itself. A

true and typed copy of the letter dated 25.01.2013 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-3 [Pg. No. 65 to 66]. A

true and typed copy of the letter dated 09.02.2015 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 4 [Pg. No. 67 to 68].

7. It i (which is compensation

to the RO Dealer for the expenses incurred during the course of

business, and also intended to provide and include reasonable

remuneration) was revised by the OMCs in 2017 w.e.f. 01.08.2017

vide letter dated 31.07.2017. Respondent OMCs claimed the

 4

revision was as per ACC

Report and was done after taking into account rising costs in

operating petrol pump dealerships; however, the Respondent

OMCs failed to provide any details regarding the break-up of the

Vide letter dated 26.08.2017, Respondent

OMCs also intimated that RO Dealers are required to pay their own

employees minimum wages as applicable to scheduled

employments in the Central sphere (applicable for Construction

workers) or statutory minimum wages as notified by the State,

whichever is higher. In reply, dealers objected to the instructions

issued for payment of higher wages to employees. A true and

correct copy of the letter dated 31.08.2017 issued by an RO dealer

to the Respondent OMC is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 5 [Pg. No. 69 to 71].

8. Subsequently, the Marketing Discipline Guidelines

were originally issued by the Respondent OMCs in 2012 were

amended in 2017 2017 Amendments by the Respondent

OMCs vide letter dated 03.10.2017. The legality of the 2017

Amendments constitutes the primary issue in the present matter

befor

9. The 2017 Amendments were intimated to the RO Dealers by way

of letters dated 06.10.2017 and 11.10.2017. The letter dated

11.10.2017 also enclosed the revised portions of the amended

 5

MDG for compliance. A true and typed copy of letter dated

06.10.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 6

[Pg. No. 72 ]. A true and correct copy of letter dated 11.10.2017 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-7 [Pg. No. 73 to

77].

10. In October, 2017 the Respondent OMCs issued a Standard

SOP

at RO dealerships. The SOP laid down certain directives to be

followed by the RO dealers. Relevant extract of the same are as

follows:

Calculate the variation (Vs-Vd), for every measure

check.
14. If two consecutive variations are beyond +/-10 ml,
action to be initiated as per MDG against short delivery
of product.
15. Variation of +/- 25 ml being the maximum permissible
error as per Legal Metrology Act and 10 ml being the
least count in the LCD display of DU, if variation in two
consecutive measure checks are beyond +/- 10 ml,
action to be initiated as per MDG against short

The SOP also stated that if the RO dealers did not comply with the

said SOP, action will be initiated by the Respondent OMCs against

them as per the MDG. A true and typed copy of the relevant extract

of the SOP dated 12.10.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A-8 [Pg. No. 78].

11. It is submitted that there is a stark contradiction between the

 6

maximum permissible error (MPE) defined within the contours of

the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and its underlying rules i.e., +/- 25

ml for 5 liters on the one hand, and the one provided in the SOP

issued by the Respondent OMCs i.e., +/10 ml, on the other hand.

Notably, the Respondent No.3 OMC in its tender issued for

procurement of Dispensing Units (which are procured by the

Respondent OMCs for installation at various retail outlets across

the country) itself provides a permissible error of +15 ml for 5 liters

and also states that accuracy shall be +/- 0.5% or better when

delivered at a delivery rate of 10 litres/minute . It is even pertinent

to highlight that the plates on the Dispensing Units installed by the

OMCs also provide for an accuracy class of 0.5 (meaning that the

accuracy of the dispensing unit shall be 0.5% for the volume

dispensed). A true and correct copy (relevant extracts) of the

tender issued by the Respondent No. 3 HPCL is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE A- 9 [Pg. No. 79 to 84]. A true and

correct copy of the plate affixed to a Dispensing Unit is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 10 [Pg. No. 85].

12. Soon after the 2017 Amendments, the Respondent OMCs started

levying extremely hefty penalties for purported infractions with the

amended MDG. A true and correct copy of a letter issued by the

Respondent OMC to an RO dealer dated 14.11.2017 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-11 [Pg. No. 86 to 90].

 7

13. Several writ petitions were filed across the country by aggrieved

R.O. Dealers seeking striking down of the 2017 Amendments.

Court seeking grant of stay on the operation of show cause notice

dated 14.11.2017 (pertaining to the levy of fine owing to breach of

2017 Amendments). A true and correct copy of the WP(C) No.

10334/2017 filed before the Delhi High Court is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE A-12 [Pg. No. 91 to 126].

14. Pertinently, the issued notice in WP(C)

No. 10334/2017 vide order dated 16.01.2018 and tagged the said

petition with two other writs filed by deale associations viz.,

WP(C) No. 11246 of 2017 and WP(C) No. 10746 of 2017. A true

and correct copy of the order passed in WP(C) No. 10334/2017

dated 16.01.2018 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 13 [Pg. No. 127 to 129].

15. Later, the Respondent OMCs filed a Counter Affidavit in WP(C)

10334 of 2017 justifying the provisions of the 2017 amendments.

A true and correct copy of the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent

No. 1 in WP(C) 10334/2017 dated 14.12.2017 is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE A- 14 [Pg. No. 130 to 159].

16. The Respondent also filed an application for vacation of the interim

order whereby the interim order was to continue till the pendency
 8

of the petition dated 05.12.2017. The Respondent OMCs

contended that the stay order p

would lead to non-implementation of the clauses amended by way

of the impugned 2017 Amendments to the MDG, leading to unjust

A true and correct copy of C.M No. 46287 of 2017 filed by the

Respondent No.2 in WP(C) 10334/2017 dated 14.12.2017 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 15 [Pg. No. 160

to 166].

17. The Petitioners filed a Rejoinder in response to the averments

made by the Respondent OMC in their Counter Affidavit. A true

and correct copy of the Rejoinder filed by the Petitioners in WP(C)

10334/2017 dated 15.01.2018 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 16 [Pg. No. 167 to 182].

18. C.M No. 1695 of 2018 was filed by Jagadamba Service Station in

WP (C) No. 10334/2017 seeking intervention in the matters before

.(C) No. 2206 of 2017. A true and correct copy

of C.M No. 1695 of 2018 filed by the Jagadamba Service Station

in WP(C) 10334/2017 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A-17 [Pg. No. 183 to 187].

19. The Respond

controverted by the Petitioners/Intervenors in WP(C) 10334/2017

 9

by way of the following documents:

(i) Computation of actual expenses including salaries and

wages which are incurred by the RO dealers.

(ii) Brief synopsis as to why the RO dealers are not even

adequately compensated, let alone unjustly enriched by the

(iii) Illustration of a Profit and Loss statement tabulated for a RO

dealership dealing in 50 kiloliters of product.

A true and correct copy of computation of expenses filed by the

Petitioners/Intervenors in WP(C) 10334/2017 is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE A- 18 [Pg. No. 188 to 190]. A true

and correct copy of brief synopsis objecting to any unjust

enrichment filed by the Petitioners/Intervenors in WP(C)

10334/2017 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-

19 [Pg. No. 191]. A true and correct copy of an illustration of a

Profit and Loss statement filed by the Petitioners/Intervenors in

WP(C) 10334/2017 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 20 [Pg. No. 192].

20. The Petitioners/Intervenors in WP(C) No. 10334/2017 also filed a

detailed application bearing number C.M. No. 12473 of 2019

whereby the claim of the Respondent OMCs that the RO dealers

controverted.

A true and correct copy of C.M No. 12473 of 2019 filed by the
 10

Petitioner/Intervenor in WP(C) No.10334/2017 (with relevant

annexures) is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-

21 [Pg. No. 193 to 221].

21. The Petitioner/Intervenors in WP(C) No. 10334/2017 filed an

additional affidavit to further supplement their objections to the

illegal and arbitrary nature of the 2017 amendments. A true and

correct copy of the Additional Affidavit filed by the

Petitioner/Intervenor in WP(C) No.10334/2017 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 22 [Pg. No. 222 to 237].

22. It may be noted that the stagnation of has

also been noted by the Standing Committee on Petroleum and

Natural Gas (2020-21) which has observed in its recommendations

that despite the rising inflation and operational costs of running

retail outlets, the OMCs have not enhanced the margins of the R.O.

Dealers since 2017. The Standing Committee has recommended

that such MDG should be reviewed to implement a staggered

system of dealership margins given differences in living cost, basic

pay structures and economic development of various states. A true

and correct copy of the report of the Standing Committee on

Petroleum and Natural Gas (2020-21) is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE A- 23 [Pg. No. 238 to 369].

23. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petitions vide final

order and judgment dated 18.03.2020 and quashed the impugned

 11

2017 Amendments. Subsequently, being aggrieved with the

judgment, the Respondent OMCs filed appeals being LPA No. 24

of 2021, LPA No. 30 of 2021 and LPA No. 31 of 2021.

24. The Respondent OMCs also filed an application seeking a stay on

the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2020.

A true and correct copy of the application for stay being C.M No.

1843 of 2020 in LPA No. 24/2021 is annexed herewith and marked

as ANNEXURE A- 24 [Pg. No. 370 to 378].

26.02.2021 was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated

18.03.2020. A true and correct copy of the order dated 26.02.2021

passed in LPA No. 24/2021 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 25 [Pg. No. 379 to 380].

25. The Petitioner along with other RO dealers approached this

assailing the order passed by the

Bench dated 26.02.2021. However, the said Petitions were

disposed off

Bench to consider the matter on merits. A true and correct copy of

the order dated 24.03.2021 passed ourt in SLP(C)

Diary No. 6951/2021 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 26 [Pg. No. 381 to 383].

26.

their response to the application for stay. A true and correct copy
 12

CM No. 1843 of 2020 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 27 [Pg. No. 384 to 392].

27. Further, CM No. 15104 of 2018 was filed by Jagadamba Service

Station in LPA No. 24/2021 seeking intervention in the appeal. A

true and correct copy of CM No. 15104 of 2018 filed by Jagadamba

Service Station in LPA No.24/2021 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE A- 28 [Pg. No. 393 to 401].

28.

also filed detailed written submissions. A true and correct copy of

Association/Respondents in LPA No. 24/2021 is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE A-29 [Pg. No. 402 to 445].

29. While the matters have been sub-judice (on which premise the

Respondent OMCs have denied revising the Dealers Commission

since 2017), the Respondent OMCs further amended the MDG as

recently on 30.11.2022. A true and correct copy of the Marketing

Discipline Guidelines (as amended in 2022) issued by the

Respondent OMCs on 30.11.2022 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE A- 30 [Pg. No. 446 to 514].

30. Furthermore, despite the pendency of the present batch of petitions

impugning the 2017 Amendments, the Respondent OMCs are

issuing violation notices to RO dealers all over the country to

 13

coerce them to comply with amended MDG provisions. A true and

correct copy of the violation notice issued by the Respondent

OMCs to RO Dealer in Tamil Nadu on 14.02.2023 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 31 [Pg. No. 515 to 516]

31. In particular, RO dealers across the country are being harassed by

the Respondent OMCs by coercive action basis allegations of short

the

maximum permissible error range as per the Legal Metrology

(General) Rules, 2011. To illustrate, upon a random inspection, the

sales of an RO dealer was stopped due to alleged variation in

dispensation of product beyond permissible limits. The RO dealer

approached the concerned authority under the Legal Metrology

Act, 2009 vide letter dated 09.12.2022 and sought an inspection

for verification of the finding of variation by the Respondent OMC.

The Deputy Controller of the Metrology Department checked the

delivery of the dispensing unit through its nozzle and found -10 ml

error in 5 liters and stated that the same is within permissible limit.

A true and correct copy of the letter written by the RO Dealer in

Kerala to the Legal Metrology Department on 09.12.2022 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 32 [Pg. No.

517] A true and typed copy of the letter written by the Legal

Metrology Department giving its findings dated 12.01.2023 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 33 [Pg. No.

 14

518].

32. Similarly, for an RO dealer in Delhi, a random inspection was

conducted after 8 pm on a particular date, and sales were stopped

and allowed to be resumed only upon recalibration of the

across all nozzles was within the maximum permissible error range

as per the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011. It is pertinent to

note that recalibration usually takes between 15 to 30 days and

even more if the petrol pump is in a remote area. A true and typed

copy of the violation notice issued by the Respondent OMCs to RO

Dealer in Delhi on 05.08.2022 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 34 [Pg. No. 519 to 523].

33. The sales of an RO dealer in Kerala were also stopped after an

inspection conducted by a sales manager of Respondent No.3

OMC in December 2022 citing short delivery of product as per the

amended MDG. A true and correct copy of the letter issued by

Respondent OMC to the RO dealer on 20.02.2023 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 35 [Pg. No. 524 to 525]

34. It is submitted that regarding the wage aspect, the Respondent

High Court to state that the increase in the wage component is

being reimbursed by them to the RO dealers. The said document

was a chart prepared and filed by the Respondent OMC with

 15

Counter Affidavit as Annexure R-2/3 @ Pg 47. A true and correct

copy of the chart filed by the Respondent OMC with their Counter

Affidavit in WP(C) 10334 of 2017 is annexed herewith and marked

as ANNEXURE A- 36 [Pg. No. 526].

35. The abovesaid chart has been reproduced at para 50 of the

impugned order with a finding that the Respondents OMCs are

reimbursing the additional costs towards salaries and wages to the

RO Dealers. It is necessary to clarify in this regard that the said

finding at para 50 of the impugned order is ex-facie erroneous and

basis incorrect facts and figures pleaded by the Respondent

OMCs. A comparison between the reimbursement claimed by the

Respondent OMCs and the salary and wages burden on the RO

Dealers as per (i) the wages prescribed by the OMCs and (ii) the

minimum wages notified by the State Governments of Karnataka,

Kerala and Delhi in 2017 would make it ex-facie apparent there is

a significant deficit in the amounts being reimbursed by the

Respondent OMCs (as part of the Dealers Commission) and the

salary and wages burden on the RO Dealers. In fact, once the

revised minimum wages as applicable in 2022 are taken into

account, the deficit increases significantly. Therefore, the

argument of the Respondent OMCs that the revised Dealers

Commission constituted just and fair reimbursement of costs and

expenses to the RO Dealers was manifestly erroneous and ought

 16

A true

and correct copy of the computation of total wages to be paid by

RO Dealers based on OMC notified wages vide email dated

19.09.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-

37 [Pg. No. 527 to 528]. A true and correct copy of the computation

of total wages to be paid by RO Dealers in Karnataka based on

State notified wages in 2017 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 38 [Pg. No. 529 to 530]. A true and correct copy

of the notification passed by the Government of Karnataka

intimating the Minimum Wage to be paid w.e.f 30.12.2017 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 39 [Pg. No. 531

to 537]. A true and correct copy of the computation of total wages

to be paid by RO Dealers in Karnataka based on State notified

wages in 2022 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE

A- 40 [Pg. No. 538 to 539]. A true and correct copy of the

notification passed by the Government of Karnataka intimating the

Minimum Wage to be paid w.e.f 01.04.2022 is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE A- 41 [Pg. No. 540 to 541]. A true

and correct copy of the computation of total wages to be paid by

RO Dealers in Kerala based on State notified wages in 2017 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 42 [Pg. No. 542

to 543]. A true and correct copy of the order passed by the

Government of Kerala intimating the Minimum Wage to be paid

 17

w.e.f 21.12.2016 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE

A- 43 [Pg. No. 544 to 559]. A true and correct copy of the

computation of total wages to be paid by RO Dealers in Kerala

based on State notified wages in 2022 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE A- 44 [Pg. No. 560 to 561]. A true and

correct copy of the order passed by the Government of Kerala

intimating the Minimum Wage to be paid w.e.f 07.02.2020 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 45 [Pg. No. 562

to 565]. A true and correct copy of the computation of total wages

to be paid by RO Dealers in Delhi based on State notified wages

in 2017 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 46

[Pg. No. 566 to 567]. A true and correct copy of the order passed

by the Government of NCT of Delhi intimating the Minimum Wage

to be paid w.e.f 01.04.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE A- 47 [Pg. No. 568 to 570]. A true and correct copy

of the computation of total wages to be paid by RO Dealers in Delhi

based on State notified wages in 2022 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE A- 48 [Pg. No. 571 to 572]. A true and

correct copy of the order passed by the Government of NCT of

Delhi intimating the Minimum Wage to be paid w.e.f 01.10.2022 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 49 [Pg. No. 573

to 574].

36. In fact, the Petitioner further submits that there are several
 18

expenses which are not even accounted for by the Respondent

A true and

correct copy of the computation of expenses not accounted for in

is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 50 [Pg. No. 575

to 586]. Pertinently, the computation prepared by the Respondent

OMCs does not factor in the fact that employees working on

notified holidays as per the National Festival and Special Holiday

Act, 1958, are paid double their wages.

37. The aforesaid documents are relevant for the purpose of

adjudication of disputes between the parties, as raised in the

present Petition and hence may kindly be taken on record, as

prayed.

38. The present application is filed bona fide and in the interests of

justice. Grave harm and prejudice would be caused to the

Petitioner if the present application is not granted. On the other

hand, no prejudice would be caused to any person if the permission

is granted.

PRAYER

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed

to:

(i) Allow the present application, and permit the Petitioner to plead