Conditional interim protection in an anti-profiteering challenge, with stay on price reduction direction pending further hearing

Interim relief in an anti-profiteering challenge may be granted on conditional terms, including deposit of the principal alleged profiteered amount in instalments, where the court considers such protection appropriate pending adjudication of the substantive challenge. The Delhi HC note further records that a direction to reduce prices was temporarily stayed until reply and further hearing, leaving the writ petition and the contested price direction for later consideration. The discussion emphasises limited interim protection rather than final determination of the constitutional or statutory issues raised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interim protection should be granted against recovery of the alleged profiteered amount, subject to deposit of the principal profiteered amount in instalments. (ii) Whether the direction relating to reduction of prices should be stayed pending reply and further hearing.

Issue (i): Whether interim protection should be granted against recovery of the alleged profiteered amount, subject to deposit of the principal profiteered amount in instalments.

Analysis: The challenge included the constitutional validity of the anti-profiteering provisions and the petitioner sought interim relief against recovery. In the circumstances, and following the approach adopted in connected matters, protection was considered appropriate on terms requiring deposit of the principal profiteered amount as levied, excluding any GST already deposited, within six months in equal monthly instalments.

Conclusion: Interim stay against recovery was granted subject to the stipulated deposit condition, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction relating to reduction of prices should be stayed pending reply and further hearing.

Analysis: The direction concerning reduction of prices was not finally addressed at that stage and was directed to be answered after a reply to the interim application, with a separate hearing fixed. Pending that consideration, temporary protection was warranted.

Conclusion: The direction regarding reduction of prices was stayed until further hearing, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The order granted limited interim relief on the anti-profiteering challenge while leaving the main writ petition and the disputed direction on prices for further consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim relief in a profiteering challenge may be granted on conditional terms where the court considers such protection appropriate pending adjudication of the substantive challenge.

---