ORAL ORDER

1. The writ-applicant herein has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 28.8.2023 Annexure-Z/1 pages 224 to 231 under the Marketing Discipline Guidelines and Dispensing Pump and Selling License (for short “DPSL) dated 28.8.2012 Annexure-R/1 pages 266 to 278 and has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 Appellate Authority, dated August 28, 2023 Annexure-Z-1 ;

(B) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 - Appellate Authority, dated August 28, 2023 - Annexure-Z-1 ;

(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.”

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ-

application read thus :-

2.1 The respondent issued notice for allotment of the petroleum outlet at Rajula. The writ-applicant submitted the necessary forms and in the selection process came to be selected. After going through the requisite procedure, an agreement came to be executed by and between the writ- applicant and the respondents on 28.8.2012 which was considered to be Dispensing Pump Selling License DPSL on various conditions. The said Agreement is duly produced at Annexure-A to the petition.

2.2 After allotment, the respondent issued Marketing Discipline Guidelines (for short ‘MDG’) which came into effect from 08.1.2013. The said guidelines would be applicable to the writ-applicant. The said guidelines is duly produced at Annexure-B.

2.3 On inspection having been carried out at the premises of the writ-applicant on 27.1.2022 and it was recorded certain deficiencies came to be recorded vide even dated communication. One of the irregularity found by the said so called inspection team and MPD/ATG was switched to offline/ manual mode without authorization from the respondent. The same being violative of MDG as per clause 5.1.16. The said communication dated 27.1.2022 is duly produced at Annexure- C. The writ-applicant answered to the said communication by reply dated 2.2.2022. The said reply is duly produced at Annexure-D.

2.4 On 31.3.2022, the instructions of the MPD was removed by the respondents and the same was stated to have been tested at the lab of the manufacturer of the said unit and that there was normal functioning of all the components of the said unit.

2.5 The writ-applicant addressed a communication on 07.3.2022 requesting the respondent to take necessary steps to permit the writ-applicant to open the retail outlet of the petroleum product. Another email was sent reiterating the said request by dated 11.3.2022.

2.6 The writ-applicant continuously addressed communications at the interval of five days or more reiterating the request by communications dated 16.03.2022, 22.03.2022, 04.04.2022, 06.04.2022, 07.04.2022, 08.04.2022, 09.04.2022, 11.04.2022, 12.04.2022. The same are duly produced at Annexure-G Colly.

2.7 A show cause notice came to be issued to the writ- applicant on 20.6.2022 alongwith the lab report. It is the case of the writ-applicant that the lab report is confirming that the components were found to be working normally.

2.8 The writ-applicant being a lady and was not properly advised, the writ-applicant replied to the said show cause notice and pointed out that the variations between MPD and ATG was on account of the malfunctioning of the instrument and the writ-applicant has not committed any error.

2.9 The writ-applicant continued making representations to the respondents on 19.09.2022. The writ-applicant on 19.09.2022 received a communication for the personal hearing on 03.10.2022 which is duly produced at Annexure K and Annexure L respectively.

2.10 The writ-applicant addressed another commun