Distributors cannot charge additional transportation fees without statutory backing or without adhering to the terms of their distributorship agreement.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the communication issued by the first respondent, dated 19.03.2019 and the consequential circular, dated 06.10.2020 issued by the 7th and 8th respondents preventing the collection of transportation charges by the LPG Distributors of the 4th respondent Oil Corporation.

2. Heard Mr. M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. M. S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for R4, R7 and R8, Mr.Natesh Raja, learned Counsel for R5 and Mr. M. Sridhar, learned Counsel for R6.

3. The issues that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition are as follows:
a) Whether the distributors of Oil Marketing Companies are entitled to collect additional transportation charges from their customers in addition to the service charges received by them from the Oil Marketing Companies, under the distributorship agreement.
b) What is the legal sanctity of the communication sent by the some of the District Collectors in the year 2009 and 2010 in the State of Tamilnadu permitting the distributors to collect additional transportation charges from their customers.

4. The case of the petitioner is that they are entitled to collect additional transportation costs, since the District Collector has permitted them to collect such charges under Clause 9(e) of the LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. According to the petitioner, only after consultation with Oil Marketing Companies, the communication, dated 16.06.2010, was sent by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, permitting the distributors of Oil Marketing Companies in the district of Ramanathapuram, to collect additional transportation costs from their customers, wherever, the need arises. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned letter, dated 19.03.2019 sent by the 1st respondent to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and Union Territories calling upon them not to permit collection of additional transportation costs by the distributors without consulting them and the consequential circular, dated 06.10.2020, sent by the 7th and 8th respondents preventing the distributors from collecting additional transportation costs from their customers, are per se, arbitrary and illegal.

5. However, it is the contention of respondent Oil Corporation, as seen from the counter affidavit filed by them that the collection of additional transportation costs by the petitioner from their customers is illegal. According to them, the petitioner has entered into a distributorship agreement with them and they are bound by the terms and conditions contained therein. According to them, the service charges payable to the petitioner by them includes delivery charges also and the petitioner is prohibited from collecting any additional transportation costs from their customers. It is their case that the Public Sector Oil Corporations serve public interest. According to them, illegally, the petitioner has been collecting additional transportation costs from their customers in violation of the terms and conditions of the distributorship agreement. It is also their case that the communication of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, dated 16.06.2010, permitting the distributors to collect additional transportation costs, has no legal sanctity, as it was without consultation with the Oil Marketing Companies.

6. It is their case that the communication sent in the year 2009 and 2010 by the District Collector cannot be relied upon by the pe