M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and others .....Respondents. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For petitioner: r to Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with M/s. Sukrit Sood & Shradha Karol, Advocates. For respondents: Ms. Vandana Mishra, Advocate. Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral): The petitioner is Proprietor of M/s. Ramson Filling Station­a Dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Hoshiarpur­ Dharamshala Road, Mubarakpur, District Una, H.P. Shorn of the details, the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 17 th August, 2012 alleging manipulation in Dispensing Unit attributed to an unauthorized mechanism/additional fitting as detected by the inspecting team who then suspended the sales and supply of petroleum products of the Retail Outlet w.e.f. 12.6.2012. The petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 8671 of 2012 seeking quashing of the Show Cause Notice dated 17.8.2012. This Court passed an interim order on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? ::: Downloaded on 10/12/2018 22:57:07 :::HCHP 2 11.10.2012, whereby the respondent­Company was directed to restore the supply of Motor Spirit/HSD and other Petroleum Products subject to . certain conditions. The writ petition was eventually decided on 22.3.2018 directing the Competent Authority of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to decide the pending representations moved by the petitioner in a time bound manner and till such time the protection granted on 11.10.2012 was directed to continue. 2. In purported compliance to those directions, the Head Retail­ North of the respondent­Corporation has passed a self speaking order dated 29th November, 2018 (Annexure P­21) confirming the tentative decision which was proposed to be taken vide Show Cause Notice dated 17th August, 2012. The Prescribed Authority vide aforesaid order directed the petitioner or his authorized representative to remain present at the site of the Retail Outlet on 21 st December, 2018 for the limited purpose of taking away his articles, if any, lying at the Retail Outlet. 3. The aggrieved petitioner has again approached this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the parties are at ad idem that vide Circular dated 3rd August, 2018, the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 have been amended and Clause 8.9 to provide Appellate Forum has been inserted. Clause 8.9 of 2012 Guidelines enables a dealer against whom action of termination arising out of invocation of MDG has been taken to file appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority comprises ::: Downloaded on 10/12/2018 22:57:07 :::HCHP 3 Dispute Resolution Panel and it includes (i) a retired Judge of the High Court; (ii) a retired Government servant who held post not below the rank . of Joint Secretary in Government of India or equivalent rank; and (iii) a retired official of PSU Oil Marketing Companies who held the post not below the rank of Director. The retired Judge of the High Court in the Committee will the Chairperson of the Appellate Forum. 5. We are, thus, of the view that there is an effective alternative mechanism available to the petitioner to assail the impugned order dated 29.11.2018 by way of an appeal. Ordered a