Jishu Suklabaidya vs. The Union Of INDIA And 16 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to maintain the challenge to the penalty order. The reasoning was based on the principle that a party cannot "approbate and reprobate," meaning they cannot accept the benefits of an order and then subsequently challenge its validity. The Court noted that the petitioner, after his appeal was rejected, had agreed to pay the penalty in installments and had indeed paid the entire amount. This conduct, by accepting the benefits derived from the order, estopped him from denying its validity. The Court relied on the doctrine of election and the principle that one cannot "blow hot and cold" or "fast and loose." Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of the petitioner's conduct.

Facts

The petitioner, Jishu Suklabaidya, challenged an order dated October 22, 2018, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,77,989/- (including GST) under the Marketing Disciplinary Guidelines. This penalty arose from a surprise inspection on August 11, 2018, at his LPG godown, where 391 cylinders and 57 pressure regulators were found missing. A show cause notice was issued on August 27, 2018, proposing a penalty of Rs. 9,13,550/- plus GST. The petitioner claims to have submitted a reply on September 2, 2018. The penalty was confirmed on October 22, 2018, with a deadline of November 2, 2018, for deposit, failing which it would be deducted from his PAD balance. The petitioner filed an appeal on October 31, 2018, which was rejected on March 26, 2019. Subsequently, the petitioner requested to pay the penalty in installments, which was agreed upon, and he subsequently paid the entire amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, having accepted the penalty order by agreeing to pay it in installments and subsequently paying the entire amount, can maintain a challenge to the said penalty order? The petitioner argued that the penalty imposed was excessive and sought an opportunity to pay in installments due to financial hardship. He relied on his subsequent actions of agreeing to and paying the penalty in installments as a demonstration of his intent to comply, albeit under duress. The respondents, primarily the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and its officials, contended that the petitioner's conduct of accepting the benefits of the order by paying the penalty in installments and liquidating the same estopped him from challenging the validity of the penalty order. They relied on the principle of "approbate and reprobate" and the doctrine of election, citing various Supreme Court judgments.