Madhya Pradesh High Court Inidan Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Maa Pitambra Service Station Thr on 30 January, 2019 1 RP13882018 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh RP13882018 (INIDAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Vs MAA PITAMBRA SERVICE STATION THR) 4 Gwalior, Dated : 30012019 Shri U.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Harshad Bahirani, learned counsel for respondent. With the consent heard finally. Present review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Sec. 151 of the CPC has been preferred for modification of order dated 07.05. 2018 passed by this court in W.P. No. 7037/2018 whereby with the consent of the parties matter was relegated back to the Director (R & D), Indian Oil Corporation Limited and he had to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible by passing a reasoned order. It appears that after the order dated 07.05. 2018, matter was kept pending by the Director (R & D), Indian Oil Corporation Limited for almost three months and on 3rd August, 2018 the Marketing Discipline Guidelines have been amended whereby the Appellate Proceedings have been prescribed by the Appellate Authority which consisted of Dispute Resolution Panel as contemplated in the amendment and therefore same had to decide the cases. It is the grievance of the petitioner Oil Company that the appellate authority (DRP) now shall have to consider the appeal, therefore, Director ( R & D) cannot decide the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that before passing the order dated 07.05. 2018 he already preferred the appeal and the same was pending before the Director (R & D) and in changed circumstance he is ready to appear before the newly constituted appellate authority provided the condition of deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/ be ignored because of the fact that his case and appeal were pending prior to passing of the amendment on date 3rd of August, 2018. He prayed for dismissal of review petition. Heard the counsel for parties at length and perused the documents. In the case in hand the order dated 07.05. 2018 has been passed by this court on the concession of the present petitioner/oil company wherein the counsel undertook for taking appropriate decision over the appeal which was pending before the appellate authority i.e. Director (R & D). After passing of the said order dated 07.05. 2018 for almost three months appeal was not decided and meanwhile amendment came into being in which relevant amendment of appellate proceedings clause 8.9 incorporated. Same reads as under: " 8.9 1. In case of termination arising out of invocation of MDG, the 2 RP13882018 dealer will have the right to appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order, before the Appellate Authority, through the concerned Divisional/ Territory / Regional office of the Oil Marketing Company (OMC). The appellate Authority is empowered to decide the matter and the appeal shall be disposed of preferably within 90 days from the date of filing the appeal in the Divisional/Territory/Regional office of the concerned Oil Marketing Company (OMC). 2. For all appeals in case of termination arising out of invocation of MDG, the Appellate Authorty will be the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) nominated by the OMC. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) will comprise of the following members: i) A retired judge of the High CourtMember 1. ii) A retired Government servant who held post not below the rank of Joint Secretary in Govt. of India or equivalent rank Member 2. iii) A retired official of PSU Oil Marketing Companies who held the post not below the rank of Director Member 3. The Retired Judge of the High Court in the Committee will be the Chairperson. 3.) The terminated dealer preferring appeal would be required to deposit Nonrefundable Appeal fee of Rs. 5 Lakhs along with their appeal to the concerned OMC. In case of SC/ST dealer, Rs. 2 Lakhs Nonrefundable Appeal fee is required to be paid along with their appeal. However, if appeal results in verdict in restoration of the Dealership, 50% of Appeal fee amount shall be refunded." Perusal of the said provision makes it clear that retrospectivity has not been assigned in the amendment and the appeal was pending prior to promulgation of amendment. In almost identical facts situa