ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to order dated 26.07.2022 passed in Special Civil Application 22420 of 2019, where-under, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants herein to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the writ applicant within a period of six weeks. 2. The short question that arises for consideration is : “Whether the order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants herein to refund Rs.5 lakhs is to be sustained or set aside.?” 3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, namely Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Manan Bhatt for petitioner and Ms. Garima Malhotra, appearing for the respondent - writ applicant and on perusal of the case papers, we notice the facts emerging therefrom are as under : 3.1. Writ applicant who was a dealer of the appellant – Company was visited with an order of termination on 15.07.2016. Being aggrieved by said order, an appeal came to be preferred on 16.08.2016. After a period of about seven months, writ applicant was informed by the appellants herein that it had received an advice from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas that appeal is to be put on hold as they were contemplating of evolving a new dispute resolution mechanism in substitution to the existing policy. After a period of one year three months, writ applicant was informed about constitution of new dispute resolution mechanism and also called upon the appellant to deposit non-refundable fee for Rs.5 lakhs for entertaining the appeal. The writ applicant paid the said amount on 10.09.2018 without raising any objection or without protesting. After six months, appellate authority vide order dated 12.03.2019, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, Special Civil Application 12076 of 2019 was filed and the said petition is said to be pending. During the pendency of the said petition, writ applicant wrote a letter on 26.08.2019 demanding refund of the non-refundable appeal fee. On account of their being no response, writ applicant approached this Court not only challenging the amended provision of clause 8.9 (3) which provided for levy of fee, but also sought for refund of the amount. During the pendency of the said petition, writ applicant wrote a letter on 26.08.2019 demanding refund of the non-refundable appeal fee. On account of their being no response, writ applicant approached this Court not only challenging the amended provision of clause 8.9 (3) which provided for levy of fee, but also sought for refund of the amount. However, a submission was made before the learned Single Judge that in the light of communication dated 30.07.2021 issued by the respondent Corporation, challenge made to the first prayer namely, questioning the amended regulation would not survive and only second prayer was pressed. Learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions raised at the bar has allowed the petition and granted the second prayer. Hence, this appeal. 4. It is the contention of Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants that learned Single Judge had not taken note of the fact that writ applicant has deposited the fee required to be deposited along with appeal as per clause 8.9 of the extant regulations without any demur or protest and as such, he is estopped from seeking refund of said amount. He would also elaborate his submissions by contending that even otherwise, writ applicant having been put on notice immediately after appeal having been filed to the effect that Ministry was contemplating of amending the regulations governing appeal and as such, appeal would be put on hold till such mechanism is evolved was well within the knowledge of the writ applicant and as such, it was too late in the day for writ applicant to contend that such provision could not have been pressed into service whereby the aggrieved parties who intends to file an appeal was required to deposit fee of Rs. 5 lakhs. Non consideration of these vital aspects according to him has resulted in miscarriage in the administration of justice. Hence, he prays for appeal being allowed. 5. Per contra, Ms. Garima Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant would support the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it would clearly emerge from records that writ applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2016 under which his dealership was terminated had preferred an appeal on 16.08.2016 as per the then existing regulations. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it would clearly emerge from records that writ applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2016 under which his dealership was terminated had preferred an appeal on 16.08.2016 as per the then existing regulations. The mechanism which governed for filing such appeal can be traced to Clause 8.9 of Marketing and Discipline Guidelines, 2012, which reads as : “1. In case of termination arising out of invocation of MDG, the 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 OMC. 2. For all Appeals filed by the Dealer(s) on termination of their RO dealerships due to invocation of MDG, except termination in case of SC/ST dealerships, the appellate authority will be the ED (Retail) in the Head Office or any other ED level officer at the Head Office, so nominated by the Company. For all cases of termination of SC/ST dealerships, the appellate authority will be a Director other than Director (Mktg.) of the OMC.” 7. It is this provision which governed the consideration and adjudication of an appeal filed against an order of termination and there is no dispute or qualms from either side on this issue. However, the bone of contention on behalf of the appellants herein is said mechanism was put on hold by the concerned Ministry namely, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, by issuance of an advisory. As per clause 8.9 of Guidelines, an aggrieved party had to file an appeal within 30 days from date of receipt of order and such appeal had to be disposed of within ninety (90) days from date of filing. Undisputedly, writ applicant had preferred an appeal on 16.08.2016. Though, appeal had to be disposed of within ninety (90) days, it was kept pending for more than six (6) months. Undisputedly, writ applicant had preferred an appeal on 16.08.2016. Though, appeal had to be disposed of within ninety (90) days, it was kept pending for more than six (6) months. On 16.03.2017, appellant addressed a letter to writ applicant informing him of this appeal having been kept on hold on the advice received from Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. If for any reason, there was a proposal for the mechanism for adjudication of appeal was to be changed cannot be a ground on which appeal filed prior thereto had to be kept on hold. We are of the view that appellants could not have been called upon to adhere to the amended provision and/or call upon the appellants by any fee, as prescribed under the amended regulations. Even otherwise, in the instant case, as is evident from the communication dated 16.08.2018 addressed to writ applicant Clause 8.9 of Marketing and Discipline Guidelines, 2012 had stood amended with effect from 03.08.2018, which provides for mechanism for filing of an appeal and procedure for its disposal It reads : “8.9. Appellate proceedings : 1. In case of termination arising out of invocation of MDG, the 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 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 Authority 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 Court – Member 1. (ii) A retired Government servant who held post now 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. 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 Non-refundable Appeal fee of Rs.5 lakhs with their appeal to the concerned OMC. In case of SC/ST dealer, Rs.2 lakhs Non-refundable Appeal fee is required to be paid along with their appeal.” 8. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 8.9. of Guidelines, 2012 mandates that terminated dealer preferring appeal would be required to deposit non refundable fee of Rs.5 lakhs along with their appeal to the concerned OMC and in case such dealer belongs to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe, the fee was fixed at Rs.2 lakhs which was also non-refundable to be paid along with their appeal. Thus, expressions found in sub-clause (3) would clearly indicate it is on such appeal being preferred or the words expression occurring in sub-clause (3) is “preferring” and “required”. Both these expressions would clearly indicate that they are in ‘future tense’ and not ‘past tense’. Even under the basic premise that a levy fee cannot be retrospective and it cannot be made applicable to the pending proceedings, the demand will have to be struck down. In the instant case, the appeal having been filed on 16.08.2016 and on said date amended provision having not come into force, it was too late in the day for the appellants to contend that amended provision would be applicable to the appeals already filed. As such, learned Single Judge has rightly held that amended provisions having come into effect from 03.08.2018 appellant was not justified in calling upon the appellant to pay or deposit Rs.5 lakhs as fee as provided under the amended clause has ordered for refund of the same. Though Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate has contended that said amount was paid without any demur or protest by the writ applicant, the principle of “consent does not confer jurisdiction” would be squarely be applicable to the facts on hand. 9. Though Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate has contended that said amount was paid without any demur or protest by the writ applicant, the principle of “consent does not confer jurisdiction” would be squarely be applicable to the facts on hand. 9. Hence, we are of the considered view that for the myriad reasons not only augured by the learned Single Judge, but also for the reasons aforestated, the demand made and consequential collection of the fee from respondent herein was not within the realm of their powers, as the regulations prevalent on the date of filing of the appeal (16.03.2017) did not provide or re-empower them to collect the said amount, the learned Single Judge has rightly called upon the respondents namely, appellants herein to refund the fee so collected from the writ applicant. We do not find any other good ground to entertain this appeal. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. All pending applications stand consigned to records.