Scrutiny Committee violated Clauses 4 to 6 of the judgment in
Kum. Madhuri Patil (supra). Even today, we find no denial to the
said factual assertion by the Scrutiny Committee. It was in this
backdrop that the Co-ordinate Bench deemed it appropriate at that
point of time to hold that since the petitioner had been running the
dealership for almost 27 years, it would not be in the interest of
justice to deprive him of the same. In other words, instead of
remanding the proceedings to the Scrutiny Committee again, the LPG
Distributorship was protected and it was clarified that the order
passed by the Scrutiny Committee would not cause prejudice to any
blood relative of the petitioner. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India
and others (supra) was delivered thereafter on 6-7-2017. The
consequences to follow pursuant to the order of invalidation have
been indicated therein. It is however necessary to note that in Chief
Regional Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue with regard to
protection of services attaining finality prior to the decision in
Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and
others (supra). In the present case, this Court by its order
dated 13-6-2016 had sought to protect the dealership of the
petitioner after noting that for a period of 27 years he had been
operating the same. This order has been accepted by the HPCL
which has awarded the dealership to the petitioner. We are inclined
