The court established that the demand for a non-refundable fee for entertaining the appeal was not justified as the amended provisions were not applicable to the appeal filed prior to the amendment.

ORDER :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to order dated 26.07.2022 passed in Special Civil Application 22420 of 2019, where-under, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants herein to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the writ applicant within a period of six weeks.

2. The short question that arises for consideration is :

“Whether the order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants herein to refund Rs.5 lakhs is to be sustained or set aside.?”

3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, namely Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Manan Bhatt for petitioner and Ms. Garima Malhotra, appearing for the respondent - writ applicant and on perusal of the case papers, we notice the facts emerging therefrom are as under :

3.1. Writ applicant who was a dealer of the appellant – Company was visited with an order of termination on 15.07.2016. Being aggrieved by said order, an appeal came to be preferred on 16.08.2016. After a period of about seven months, writ applicant was informed by the appellants herein that it had received an advice from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas that appeal is to be put on hold as they were contemplating of evolving a new dispute resolution mechanism in substitution to the existing policy. After a period of one year three months, writ applicant was informed about constitution of new dispute resolution mechanism and also called upon the appellant to deposit non-refundable fee for Rs.5 lakhs for entertaining the appeal. The writ applicant paid the said amount on 10.09.2018 without raising any objection or without protesting. After six months, appellate authority vide order dated 12.03.2019, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, Special Civil Application 12076 of 2019 was filed and the said petition is said to be pending. During the pendency of the said petition, writ applicant wrote a letter on 26.08.2019 demanding refund of the non-refundable appeal fee. On account of their being no response, writ applicant approached this Court not only challenging the amended provision of clause 8.9 (3) which provided for levy of fee, but also sought for refund of the amount. However, a submission was made before the learned Single Judge that in the light of communication dated 30.07.2021 issued by the respondent Corporation, challenge made to the first prayer namely, questioning the amended regulation would not survive and only second prayer was pressed. Learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions raised at the bar has allowed the petition and granted the second prayer. Hence, this appeal.

4. It is the contention of Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants that learned Single Judge had not taken note of the fact that writ applicant has deposited the fee required to be deposited along with appeal as per clause 8.9 of the extant regulations without any demur or protest and as such, he is estopped from seeking refund of said amount. He would also elaborate his submissions by contending that even otherwise, writ applicant having been put on notice immediately after appeal having been filed to the effect that Ministry was contemplating of amending the regulations governing appeal and as such, appeal would be put on hold till such mechanism is evolved was well within the knowledge of the writ applicant and as such, it was too late in the day for writ applicant to contend that such provision could not have been pressed into service whereby the aggrieved parties who intends to file an appeal was required to deposit fee of Rs. 5 lakhs. Non consideration of these vital aspects according to him has resulted in miscarriage in the administration of justice. Hence, he prays for appeal being allowed.

5. Per contra, Ms. Garima Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant would support the impugned order.

6. Having heard the learned counsel