- (1.) The members of the petitioner company are Dealers in petroleum products. The respondent oil companies framed the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2012 which were to be followed by the dealers. In 2017 amendment was made to the said guidelines w.e.f. 2nd October, 2017, inter alia, providing for penalties on dealers pertaining to short delivery of products, automated system of ROs, toilet facilities, observations of statutory and other regulations regarding wages and payment of wages.
(2.) Being aggrieved by such amendment, various parties challenged the same before various High Courts by way of writ petitions. One of the oil companies approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a transfer petition contending that since the same issue was pending before various High Courts, there was likelihood of conflict of decisions and hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court should withdraw all the writ petitions and hear out the same itself. By an order dated 27th November, 2017 the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed as follows:- "We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is stated that the transfer petitions have been filed on the ground that on the same issue several petitions are pending in different High Courts. We are of the view that instead of allowing transfer, it will be in the interest of justice that one High Court first decides the matter. Accordingly, we request the Delhi High Court to decide W.P. (C) No. 10334 of 2017 pending before it expeditiously and preferably within three months from today. Other High Courts may proceed with the matters after the Delhi High Court decides the same. It will be open to any affected parties to intervene before the Delhi High Court. The transfer petitions are, accordingly, disposed of."
(3.) The present appellants approached the learned Single Judge of this High court by filing WP no. 29131(w) of 2017 challenging the amendment to the said guidelines. The learned Single Judge refused to pass any interim order in view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;