Judgment :- These petitions having been heard and reserved on 16.09.2009 and coming on for pronouncement of orders this day, the Court delivered the following: These petitions are heard and disposed of together having regard to the common issues that arise for consideration notwithstanding some variance on facts in each of the cases: 2. The facts of each of the cases are briefly narrated hereunder: WP 37175/1999: The petitioners are retail outlet dealers of petroleum products. The said products are sold at their Filling and Service Stations. Respondents 2 to 5 are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and are all Government Companies within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The objectives of the said respondents is to sell and distribute petroleum products through retail outlets such as that of the petitioners. In most cases, the said respondents themselves develop and provide the necessary infrastructure at the retail outlets. The petitioners had entered into independent dealership agreements with respondent No.2. They are Standard Form Contracts. The petitioners have no say as regards the terms and conditions of the said contracts. The Union of India, acting under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, has issued an Order called the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. (hereinafter called the ‘MS & HSD’ Order for brevity). The said Order deals with practices and safeguards to be adopted in the process of supply, distribution, sale and search of petrol and diesel. Apart from the above, the Petroleum Act, 1934 and Rules made thereunder govern the import, production, refining transfer. Search and blending of petroleum products. Further, the manner in which the dispensing units, installed at the retail outlets are to be operated and maintained is provided for by the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Rules thereunder. During the pendency of the petition, the MS & HSD Order of 1998 has been repealed and replaced by the MS & HSD Order 2005. BY the MS & HSD Order 2005, additional parameters were incorporated as regards quality and the quantity conforming to delivery documents of the products and the requirements of the Bureau of Indian Standard Specifications. During the pendency of the petition, the MS & HSD Order of 1998 has been repealed and replaced by the MS & HSD Order 2005. BY the MS & HSD Order 2005, additional parameters were incorporated as regards quality and the quantity conforming to delivery documents of the products and the requirements of the Bureau of Indian Standard Specifications. It is the case of the petitioners that insofar as the supply, distribution and the maintenance of quality etc., of the petroleum products are concerned, the same are completely governed by the Petroleum Act and Rules and the Weights and Measures Act. Hence, the MS & HSD Order 2005 framed under the Essential Commodities Act was ultra vires and unconstitutional. To add to this respondents 2 to 5 have framed what are known as Marketing Discipline Guidelines ((hereinafter referred to as ‘MDG’ for brevity). Under the MDG prescribe elaborate procedural formalities to be followed by the dealers in the course of supply, distribution, handling, storage and sale of the products. The said MDG have no statutory basis and are arbitrarily imposed on the petitioners and other dealers. The same provide for penalties such as suspension of sale, fines and termination of the dealership itself. The petitioners seek to challenge the guidelines as being violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. WP 40408/1999: The petitioner is a dealer of petroleum products, vending the same through a retail outlet – under a dealership agreement with M/s IBP company Limited (the first respondent) since the year 1987) It is stated that on 21.9.1999, the petitioner was supplied with 8000 kilo litres of petrol from the depot of the first respondent. On 23.9.1999, an inspection squad of the respondent oil companies visited the outlet of the petitioner and took samples of the petrol in storage as well as samples of the petrol delivered by tankers – at the time of delivery – which are required to be preserved – and on the allegation that the samples of petrol in storage did not conform to specification in respect of a distillation test was served with a notice dated 11.10.1999, calling upon him to show - causes as to why action ought not to be taken in terms of the dealership agreement. The notice was received by the petitioner on 23.10.1999 and the petitioner replied on 25.10.1999 bringing to the attention of the respondents that the samples of supplied and stored were the same and that was no scope for adulteration at the outlet. The first respondent however, ordered for suspension of sales for 45 days at the petitioner’s outlet purportedly in terms of clause-12 of the dealership agreement. The petitioner, therefore seeks to challenge the propriety of the suspension and the validity of the MS HSD Order as well as the MDG. WP 40783/1999: The petitioner, is a dealer in petroleum products engaged by M/s Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (the first respondent) under a dealership agreement. The petitioner’s retail outlet was said to have been inspected by the personal of the first respondent on 11.10.1999 with an industry Mobile Laboratory and they had taken samples of petrol. Subsequently, on 16.10.1999, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner as the samples take from his outlet did not conform to specifications prescribed. The petitioner, in turn, had denied that he had committed any adulteration – it was brought to the respondent’s attention that he had no way of testing the product. The respondent having thereafter passed an order of suspension of the sales and supplies of all products at the petitioner’s unit for a period of 45 days the petitioner has challenged the order and the constitutional validity of the MS and HSD Order as well as the MDG. WP 37156/2000 The petitioner is a dealer under M/s IBP Company Limited, the first respondent herein, having been appointed under an agreement of the year 1995. It is claimed that officials of the respondent company visited the petitioners outlet and drew samples for testing and was later served with a notice to show cause as to why action ought not to be taken for violation of the dealership agreement since the sample allegedly did not meet the specified standards. Inspite of an appropriate reply by the petitioner – the respondent company imposed a penalty of suspension of sales for 45 days – it is this which is under challenge. Inspite of an appropriate reply by the petitioner – the respondent company imposed a penalty of suspension of sales for 45 days – it is this which is under challenge. WP 19166/2000: The petitioner is a dealer of petroleum products of M/s Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, the first respondent in this petition and was appointed as such to manage a retail outlet under a dealership agreement dated 19.4.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.5.2000 petrol was supplied from the storage unit of the respondent. The density test carried out showed it matched with the required specification. It transpires that on the next day, an official visited the outlet and had taken a sample of the same petrol without following the proper procedure and had issued a show-cause notice to the effect that test reports revealed that the motor spirit sample failed to meet the specification with regard to final boiling point and was placed under threat of cancellation of the agreement. And without affording a further opportunity to the petitioner of affording a defence and even without any allegation that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the variation in the sample – the supply and sales at the outlet stood suspended indefinitely. It was only after six days that the petitioner was served with an order of suspension of sales and supplies for a period of 45 days. WP 10511/2003 The petitioner is a dealer of IBP company under an agreement dated 25.2.1991. It is the petitioner’s case that on an inspection by the respondent – company’s Anti-Adulteration Cell, it had opined that the High-Speed Diesel Stock at the outlet was beyond permissible limit and a motor spirit sample having been collected and sent for test and on obtaining an alleged Lab report – it was recorded that the sample had failed the test. And after issuing a show-cause notice dated 26.2.2003 and without waiting for any reply of the petitioner, an order was passed suspending the sale and supply of products to the petitioner’s outlet for a period of 30 days and imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/-. WP 21565/2003 The petitioner is a dealer of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation the second respondent herein since the year 1952. WP 21565/2003 The petitioner is a dealer of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation the second respondent herein since the year 1952. On 23.12.2002, a Mobile Checking Squad of the respondent – company visited the retail outlet of the petitioner and drew samples of the motor spirit in stock with the petitioner and a report was submitted allegedly on the basis of the said sample to the effect that the boiling point was above the prescribed standard and therefore was adulterated. On a request by the petitioner, a second test is said to have been conducted and a report was said to have been sent under cover of a letter dated 25.2.2003 by the Senior Regional Manager of the respondent – company to the same effect, but with a greater variance with the prescribed standard. Consequently, the second respondent company – had imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- and passed an order suspending sales at the retail outlet for a period of 30 days – which is challenged in the present petition. WP 35970/2003 The petitioner is a dealer under M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the second respondent herein and was so appointed under a dealership agreement dated 7.2.1996. It is alleged that on 19.5.2003, an officer of the respondent company inspected the petitioner’s retail outlet and drew samples of the petrol in stock and it was reported by the said officer that on the same being subjected to laboratory test – it was allegedly found not to be in conformity with prescribed standards. The explanation of the petitioner disowning any responsibility insofar as the sample not matching the specified standards was rejected and the petitioner was imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- and sales were suspended for a period of 30 days. It is this which is under challenge. WP 53238/2003 The petition is dismissed as withdrawn vide memo dated 13.7.2006. WP 43033/2004 The petitioner is retail dealer under the Indian Oil Corporation having been appointed under a dealership agreement dated 13.11.1984. The petitioner’s retail outlet was subjected to an inspection on 18.8.2004 and it was found that there was a discrepancy in entering the density of motor spirit in the register maintained for this purpose by the petitioner. Hence, samples were drawn by the officer of the respondent – company and sent for analysis. The petitioner’s retail outlet was subjected to an inspection on 18.8.2004 and it was found that there was a discrepancy in entering the density of motor spirit in the register maintained for this purpose by the petitioner. Hence, samples were drawn by the officer of the respondent – company and sent for analysis. The respondent – company thereafter proceeded to order suspension of sales for 30 days and imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/-. Though this action was successfully challenged in proceedings before this court, the same punishment was imposed on the basis of a subsequent hearing afforded to the petitioner. It is this which is under challenge. WP 37827/2004 The petitioner is a dealer under the second respondent Indian Oil Corporation. It is alleged that the retail outlets of the petitioner was inspected by an officer of the respondent- company on 18.4.2004 and samples were drawn of the motor spirit in stock to be subjected to Laboratory tests and it was thereafter belatedly reported that the sample did not conform to prescribed standards. And inspite of the best efforts of the petitioner to establish his innocence- punishment of a penalty and suspension of sales was imposed which is sought to be questioned herein. WP 7422/2007 The petitioner is a retail dealer of the products of Indian Oil Corporation, the second respondent herein. The petitioner’s retail outlet is said to have been inspected on 11.8.2006 by officers of the second respondent-company. It is claimed that the totalizer sealer affixed to the petrol pump was measured with by an unauthorized person accompanying one of the officers and in order to cover up this inadvertence, the petitioner was compelled to submit an untrue statement offering an explanation for the broken seal though there was no fault on her part. Though proceedings were initiated against the petitioner – the same were terminated after accepting the petitioner’s explanation. However, the respondent- company has imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- which is without basis. It is this which is sought to be challenged. In the above facts, in each of these cases, the contentions on which the petitions are brought are identical. The petitioners in one capacity or the other, are dealers appointed under agreements to run retail outlets. The contract is a standard form contract in every single case. The respondent- Oil companies have jointly framed what are called “Marketing Discipline Guidelines”. In the above facts, in each of these cases, the contentions on which the petitions are brought are identical. The petitioners in one capacity or the other, are dealers appointed under agreements to run retail outlets. The contract is a standard form contract in every single case. The respondent- Oil companies have jointly framed what are called “Marketing Discipline Guidelines”. These guidelines lay down various procedural formalities to be followed in the course of supply, distribution, handling, storage and sale of petroleum products. The petitioners seek to question the constitutionality of MSHSD Order and the MDG as being violative of their fundamental rights. 3. Shri Ravi Vaarma Kumar, Senior Advocate, appearing for the counsel for the petitioners contends as follows: The filed pertaining to the supply, distribution and maintenance of quality and quantity of petroleum products are governed by the provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Rules made thereunder, the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpracties) Order 2005 – framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is pointed out that the above statutes cover the entire filed pertaining to maintenance of the quality, Supply, distribution and the sale of petroleum products in the face of which, the several public sector Oil marketing companies have together framed what are termed as marketing Discipline Guidelines to be adhered to by the retail outlets, such as those run by the petitioners. These guidelines seek to supplement and elaborate the procedural formalities to be followed in the course of supply, distribution, handling, storage and sale of petroleum products. It is contended that the guidelines provide for imposition of penalties, which include suspension of sales, fines and even termination of dealership. The same are unilateral and are issued without authority of law. None of the aforesaid statutes contemplate or authorise the framing of such guidelines and are therefore unconstitutional as being in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The onerous and irrational character of the MDG is sought to be highlighted by reference to a few of the instances in respect of which the Oil Companies have given unto themselves the power to penalize the petitioners. The onerous and irrational character of the MDG is sought to be highlighted by reference to a few of the instances in respect of which the Oil Companies have given unto themselves the power to penalize the petitioners. The dispensing units at the retail outlets are owned and maintained by the Oil companies. The same are caliberated and are armed which seals installed by authorities under the SWM Act. Hence, any instance of short supply can be dealt with under the mechanism provided under the SWM Act. Hence, the guidelines prescribing heavy penalties on the dealers on alleged erratic delivery by the dispensing units, which are incidentally duly certified by the Oil companies, is arbitrary and illegal as the possible malfunctioning of the dispensing units owing to varies factors such as, climatic conditions, erratic power supply and the Oil companies own want of quality maintenance in certifying the units is completely discounted and overlooked. There are guidelines which prescribe penalties for alleged discourteous behaviour by sales person, non- provision of first- aid and toilet facilities. As the retail outlets are established by the Oil companies, the continued existence of the infrastructure is really the responsibility of the Oil companies. Though the employees at the retail outlets are to maintain a minimum level of courtesy- the power to impose penalties on alleged misbehaviour and discourtesy is arbitrary and at the will of the Oil companies. In establishing the retail outlet, the design and layout of the storage tanks, the dispensing units and other infrastructure is decided by the Oil companies and statutory permission is obtained under the Explosives Act, 1884, the dealers have no say in this aspect of the matter. However, the MDG now provides that if any action is taken by the authorities under the Explosives Act, 1884 for any discrepancy, the Oil companies can terminate the dealership on that ground. Though the Indian Standard methods of sampling of petroleum and its products provides the manner in which samples are to be collected, depending on the product, the MDG provides unbridled power to the officials of the Oil companies to collect samples for purposes of ascertaining quality or other parameters- exposing the dealers to punishment under the MDG on the basis of unfair and inaccurate reports on account of improper collection of samples of products. The MDG does not provide for any remedy by way of an appeal or revision on a decision taken by the officers of the Oil companies – this is opposed to law and has made the Oil companies totally authoritarian. The MDG provides for penal measures which are inconsistent with the statutory provisions governing the activity of the petitioners and is thus clearly illegal and unconstitutional. Under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, the rights guaranteed under 19(1)g can be restricted under two conditions namely, the restrictions should be reasonable and can only be brought about by legislation. In the absence of any legislative sanction to the MDG – they are liable to be struck down as being unconstitutional. The MDG being a humungous, gloss sought to be placed on the statutory provisions and the contractual obligations binding the petitioners are clearly draconian and are an abuse of power by the Oil companies. 4. Shri S. Subash, Counsel for the petitioners supplemented the above contentions by taking this court through the individual petitions to highlight and emphasize the specific instances of the application of the MDG by the Oil companies to penalize and terrorize the petitioners. 5. The Counsel for the respondents namely, Shri B.K. Shridhar and Shri C. Ravindran while seeking to answer allegations on factual aspects would contend as follows: That the several petitioners and the respondents are governed by the terms of the respective dealership agreements – it is purely a commercial contract and the purposed disputes sought to be raised arise out of a non-statutory contract and therefore is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Further the dealership agreement also provides for arbitration between the parties – the present disputes sought to be raised are on disputed questions of fact and would necessarily have to be referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Without prejudice to the above, it is contended that the respondent –Oil companies are Government companies as defined under the Companies Act, 1956. They are entrusted with the responsibility of refining and marketing of petroleum products through retail outlets – run by dealers such as the petitioners. The dispensing units though maintained by respondents are under the supervision of the Meterology department, but are however, operated by the Dealers and their employees. The Dealer is responsible for maintaining the quality of the product. They are entrusted with the responsibility of refining and marketing of petroleum products through retail outlets – run by dealers such as the petitioners. The dispensing units though maintained by respondents are under the supervision of the Meterology department, but are however, operated by the Dealers and their employees. The Dealer is responsible for maintaining the quality of the product. The Marketing Discipline Guidelines are framed from time to time by the Oil companies in consultation and with the due approval of the Ministry of Petroleum. These Guidelines are framed in order to bring about uniformity in conduct and discipline of maintenance of standards across dealers of the marketing Oil companies. The petitioners are bound by the same by virtue of the Dealership agreement. Thus is apart from the power to take action available including the MS/HSD Control Order 2005. It is contended that the several statutes governing the import, transport, storage, production, resining and blending of petroleum do not deal with quality and quantity aspects of petroleum products marketed in retail by the petroleum dealers when the said commodities are stored by the dealers and dispensed to the general public. Hence, the provisions of the Petroleum Act and Rules would not have relevance in the context of prevention of adulteration and other malpractices being committed by erring dealers. It is hence that the MS and HSD Control Order was framed in terms of power conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Similarly, the MDG has been introduced with the approval of the Ministry of Petroleum. The said guidelines provide for the procedure at each stage, namely handling at retail outlets, sampling procedure and prescribes details of penal action. The above are necessary to safeguard the interest of the general public to be assured of quality products – hence the allegation as to the same being unconstitutional is baseless. The guidelines have been in vogue Since the year 1982. Dealers across the country having abided by the same, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the same at this remote point of time. And hence, the counsel seek that the petitions be dismissed. By way of reply, it is pointed out that insofar as the disputes being referable to the dealership agreement is incorrect. Dealers across the country having abided by the same, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the same at this remote point of time. And hence, the counsel seek that the petitions be dismissed. By way of reply, it is pointed out that insofar as the disputes being referable to the dealership agreement is incorrect. The disputes relate to the action of the respondents by recourse to the MDG which has no sanction of law nor is referable to the dealership agreement. The petitioners are neither consulted in forming the same nor is it bilateral in character. The contention as regards the dealership agreement providing for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is therefore irrelevant. In any event, the respondents have not complied with Section 8 of that Act in seeking reference to Arbitration. Further all the dealership agreements do not contain Arbitration Clauses – a list has been provided in this regard, along with the brief note submitted on conclusion of arguments. Insofar as the MDG being wholly inconsistent with the statutory provisions and conferring an excessive arbitrary power on officers of the oil companies, attention is drawn to a letter dated 11.12.2006 from the Chief Controller of Explosives addressed to M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as regards anomalies in the MDG vis-à-vis the provisions of Petroleum Rules, 2002 particularly, as regards sampling procedures followed as per MDG at retail outlets and the same being violative of condition-1 of the licence issued under the Rules, besides raising potential risk to the public safety. The corporation has been asked to stop the existing practice. Further the corporation has been advised to approach the Central Government which is empowered to make appropriate Rules in this regard in terms of Section 14 of the Petroleum Act, 1934. Attention was also drawn to a letter dated 02.12.1998 issued by the Controller of Meteorology, Chennai addressed to HPCL to state that the officers of the oil companies not being empowered under the SWM Act to check dispensing pumps for accuracy in quantity delivered. They could do so only through Assistant Controllers or Inspectors of the Department of Meteorology. 6. Attention was also drawn to a letter dated 02.12.1998 issued by the Controller of Meteorology, Chennai addressed to HPCL to state that the officers of the oil companies not being empowered under the SWM Act to check dispensing pumps for accuracy in quantity delivered. They could do so only through Assistant Controllers or Inspectors of the Department of Meteorology. 6. In the above background, it is to be noticed that though in all these petition a challenge is made to the validity of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply Distribution and Prevention of Malpractice) Order 2005, on various grounds-the same is not urged with any force at the hearing-the emphasis was on the challenge to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines in force. Further, though the actions of the respondents are chosen to be question as being arbitrary or in violation of principles of natural justice-the same are not addressed as the question that is worthy of consideration, in the opinion of this Court, is only as to the whether the Marketing Discipline Guidelines framed by the respondent oil companies has a basis either in law or contract. It is not in dispute that the said guidelines, as framed in 1982 revised in 1985 and again in 1998, 2001 & 2005 are not under any statutory provision of law. It is a joint initiative of the respondent – oil companies to be made applicable to all retail outlet dealers-and are framed in consultation with and the approval of the Ministry of Petroleum. Government of India. The said Guidelines broadly provide for. (a) Procedure for handling of products at Retail outlets by dealers. (b) Industry guidelines for sample collection and testing 3-tier sampling system. (c) Handling of Motor Spirit. High – Speed Diesel and Kerosene oil at company’s storage points and duties of oil companies. (d) Maintenance of Company’s equipment’s at retail outlets. (e) Inspection of retail outlets. (f) Prevention of irregularities at Retail outlets etc. Appendix I, II and III provide for penal provisions against dealers. The Marketing Discipline Guidelines – 2005 at page 36 contains the following ‘Notes’. “NOTES: i) the above are general guidelines and the penal actions prescribed in Appendix-1 are minimum. The competent Authority of the concerned Oil Company can however take appropriate higher punitive action against the erring dealer, if deemed necessary including termination in the first or any instance. The Marketing Discipline Guidelines – 2005 at page 36 contains the following ‘Notes’. “NOTES: i) the above are general guidelines and the penal actions prescribed in Appendix-1 are minimum. The competent Authority of the concerned Oil Company can however take appropriate higher punitive action against the erring dealer, if deemed necessary including termination in the first or any instance. ii) All cases of irregularities needs to be established before any penal action is taken against a dealer. iii) Every penal action would be taken only after a show cause notice is issued and giving the dealer a minimum time of 7 days to submit his explanation. If the dealer’s reply is not received within the time stipulated in the show cause notice or if the reply received is found to be unsatisfactory penal action as given in appendix-1 to be taken. No penal action to be taken if the dealer’s explanation is found to be satisfactory. iv) The decision taken on action against the dealer based on reply received from him for the show cause notice has to be communicated to the dealer in writing end this should be a speaking order. In the event of termination, the dealer. With in 30 days of the order, will have the right to appeal before the appropriate authority who will be empowered to decide in the matter. The appeal must be disposed of within 90 days from the date of the appeal. The appropriate authority to hear the appeals shall be by an officer not below the rank of Executive Director. v) The cycle of calculating second and third instance shall be five years starting from the date of first irregularity. In other words if an irregularity is established as on date, records of previous 5 year period from this date will be examined determine whether the Present irregularity is the first, second or the third instance of irregularity. vi) The dealer shall maintain all required records for a minimum period of last 5 years and produce the same an demand. vii) In case, two or more irregularities are detected at the same time at the same RO, a. Each of the irregularities should be accounted as an instance against the respective type of irregularity. b. Action will be taken in line with what is listed in Appendix-1 for that specific irregularity and also for that specific instance. vii) In case, two or more irregularities are detected at the same time at the same RO, a. Each of the irregularities should be accounted as an instance against the respective type of irregularity. b. Action will be taken in line with what is listed in Appendix-1 for that specific irregularity and also for that specific instance. c. Penal action will be imposed for each of the irregularity thereby giving a compounding effect. viii) In case of irregularities not specified mentioned/covered above the competent-appropriate authority of the concerned Oil Company shall impose proper penalty and /or issue warning letter after enquiry and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. ix) Field staff should ensure that samples for testing are sent to the Laboratory preferably with 10 days of drawl of the some. Lab test reports should thereafter be made available preferably with 20 days. The test results to be advised to the concerned dealer/transporter/concerned agency within 5 days of receipt of the test results from the laboratory. x) When samples are drawn by the Retail Outer dealer. Oil Company representative. Mobile Lab etc from a MS tank through the nozzle of the dispensing unit connected to that tank, it should be ensured that the MS sample is drawn only through the nozzle delivering non-2T premixed MS. In case all nozzles connected to a MS tank are delivering only 2T- premixed MS, then in such case necessary precaution is to be taken ensure that the MS sample drawn is free from 2T Oil. xi) Under existing laws. Control Orders etc., various authorities of Central Government/ State Government – in addition to Oil Company Officers-are empowered to carry out checks of the dealership for determining and securing compliance with such laws/Control Order. If any “malpractice or irregularity” is established by such authorities after checking, the same would also be taken as a “malpractice or irregularity” under these guidelines and prescribed punitive action would be taken by the Oil Company an receipt of advice from such authority. xii) Wherever fine with suspension has been provided, fine must be paid within suspension period, failing which suspension would be extended by the equivalent period if fine is not paid even with the extended period the dealership would be terminated. xiii) When an investigation against a RO is being carried out by an agency. xii) Wherever fine with suspension has been provided, fine must be paid within suspension period, failing which suspension would be extended by the equivalent period if fine is not paid even with the extended period the dealership would be terminated. xiii) When an investigation against a RO is being carried out by an agency. Especially an external agency no parallel investigation shall be carried out by an official of the Oil Company. xiv) In case of SKO-LDO dealerships action for suspension of supplies of SKO will be taken in consultation with the local Civil Supply Authorities. In case the Civil Supply Authorities do not agree suspension of supplies a strong warning letter to be issued to the dealer.” Appendix I to III contemplate 32 different types of irregularities and provides for a penal action including a fine ranging from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh and termination of dealership. As is plain from the above, the officers of the respondent – company have given themselves extensive powers of punishing the petitioner – while labeling the relationship as a contractual one. There is a unilateral relegation of power which is obviously vested with authorities under the SWM Act and the Petroleum Act, 1934, respectively, as is pointed out in letters referred to above. By authorities under the Explosives Act and the SWM Act. Except pleading that the guidelines have been approved by the Government and that the same are made in the best interest of the consumer, there is admittedly no statutory delegation of power under which said guidelines are framed. It is also to be noticed that the said guidelines being relatable to the respective dealership agreement of the petitioners also is not tenable as in many cases on hand, the dealership agreements are executed much prior to 1982 and the agreement refers to obligations arising under statutory provisions. The guidelines which are not framed under any authority of law are unilaterally imposed by the respondent-companies on the petitioners. The guidelines are not harmless instructions to the dealers but are loaded with penal provisions which are invoked by the officers of the respondent – companies on the basis of reports and a possible summary enquiry – there is no procedure prescribed in this regard. The sketchy instruction by way of “Notes”, extracted herein above are vague and inadequate. The guidelines are not harmless instructions to the dealers but are loaded with penal provisions which are invoked by the officers of the respondent – companies on the basis of reports and a possible summary enquiry – there is no procedure prescribed in this regard. The sketchy instruction by way of “Notes”, extracted herein above are vague and inadequate. The breach of guidelines being adjudicated in terms of the “Notes” above referred, the reference to the arbitration clause in terms of the dealership agreement is a Self-contraction on the part of the respondent – companies. However, if it is a mater of concern the respondent companies that there are inadequate safe-guards and lack of appropriate measures under the exiting statutory provisions which prompted the introduction of the guidelines to prevent adulteration and other malpractice by retail dealers, the want of legislative sanction to impose the same vitiates the said guidelines. They are clearly unconstitutional on that court. The fact that the MDG have been in have been in vogue Since the year 1982 and that they have not been questioned as regards the legality of the same cannot be a ground to uphold the same. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed in part. The amended Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005 are hereby struck down as being without authority of law and unconstitutional. Consequently, any action of the respondents impugned in the above writ petitions initiated with reference to the said guidelines which has remained in abeyance by virtue of these petitions pending before this court, are hereby set at naught unless such action has played itself out. No order as to Costs.