ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr.Manan Bhatt waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. A short issue is involved in this writ petition and hence, the same is heard and decided today.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Garima Malhotra appearing for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the prayer No.12(a) is concerned, the same would not survive in view of the communication dated 30.07.2021 issued by the respondent-Corporation however, with regard to prayer No.12(b) is concerned, she has submitted that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs) deposited by the petitioner is still lying with the respondents, and the same may be ordered to be refunded. She has submitted that the said amount is deposited in view of the provision of Clause 8.9(3) of Marketing and Disciplinary Guidelines (MDG) effective from 08.01.2013, which was amended on 03.08.2018. She has submitted that in view of the aforesaid provision, while preferring an appeal, the petitioner was required to deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as non- refundable fees, which was mandatory for filing an appeal, to be heard by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). She has submitted that prior to the provision of Clause 8.9(3), the unamended Clause 8.9 of the MDG did not require any mandatory deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-, while filing the appeal. She has submitted that subsequently since the unamended provision, which was prevailing prior to 03.08.2018 has been restored, the respondents may be directed to refund the fees of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner.

3.1 Learned advocate Ms.Malhotra has also contended that the petitioner had filed an appeal on 16.08.2016 under the provision of Clause 8.9 of the MDG against termination letter dated

15.07.2016. She has submitted that as per Clause 8.9 of the MDG, such an appeal was required to be heard preferably within a period of 90 days however, the same has been decided by the order dated 12.03.2019, after promulgation of the amended provision dated 03.08.2018. Thus, she has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have already issued the communication dated 30.07.2021 clarifying that the unamended provision of Clause 8.9 of the MDG is restored, which does not contemplate of predeposit of any amount for getting the appeal registered. It is submitted that vide communication dated 16.08.2018, the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in view of the amended provision, failing which his appeal could not have been heard. Thus, it is urged that the respondents may be directed to refund the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner.

4. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned advocate Mr.Bhatt appearing for the respondent No.2, while placing reliance on the affidavit, has submitted that such amount cannot be refunded since the same has been deposited by the petitioner in view of the amended MDG dated 03.08.2018. He has further submitted that the writ petition cannot be entertained in view of the contractual/commercial terms and conditions. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an appeal under the MDG and accordingly, he was communicated by the letter dated 16.03.2017 that a proposal to form a DRP was already under consideration. He has submitted that at no point of time, the petitioner has raised any objection with regard to waiver of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and hence, the writ petition may not be entertained. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order of termination by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12076 of 2019, which is still pending. He has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any refund from “non-refundable Appeal Fee” as the termination of the petitioner on the ground of tampering with Dispensed Unit (DU), which falls within critical irregularity, has been upheld by the DRP of three embers, which is subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid writ petition