Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1170 (PAT)

Raghu Nandan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-11-25

AFTAB ALAM

body2004
Judgment 1. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee files a counter affidavit on behalf of the Chief Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, respondent no. 6. Let it be taken on record. 2. This writ petition arises from a dispute over the control of a petrol pump at Paliganj. The dispute is between two cousins (first degree paternal) and as a result of the dispute the petrol pump stands closed from 16.12.2003. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee stated that the closure of the petrol pump not only affected adversely the sale of the Corporation but it was causing great inconvenience to the people of Paliganj and it was in the general interest, both of the Oil Corporation and the consumers, that the petrol pump should resume operation at an early date. 3. From the materials on record, it becomes apparent and clear that a family dispute led to a law and order problem and eventually to the closure of the petrol pump. 4. The undeniable position is that the Dealer Agreement stands between the Indian Oil Corporation and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh/Sheo Pujan Singh carrying on business in the firm named and styled as M/s Raghunandan Singh & Sons. Raghunandan Singh is now dead and he has left behind two sons, namely, Bhanu Pratap Singh (who represents the partnership firm, being the petitioner) and Sheo Pujan Singh. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the agreement they were running the petrol pump which was in operation admittedly till 16.12.2003. The piece of land over which the petrol pump is situate is also claimed by the petitioner as their raiyati land. According to petitioner, the intervenor Ravindra Singh has no manner of concern either with the Dealership Agreement, 1he running of the petrol pump or the price of land over which it is constructed. 5. On the other hand Ravindra Singh, who has filed an intervention petition in this case, tells an altogether different story. Ravindra Singh is son of Jagdish Singh (deceased) who was the own brother of Raghunandan Singh. According to the intervenor, the petrol-pump business was started in the year, 1965 by Raghunandan Singh as Karta of the undivided Hindu family. The fund for starting the business also came from the nucleus of the Hindu undivided family. Ravindra Singh is son of Jagdish Singh (deceased) who was the own brother of Raghunandan Singh. According to the intervenor, the petrol-pump business was started in the year, 1965 by Raghunandan Singh as Karta of the undivided Hindu family. The fund for starting the business also came from the nucleus of the Hindu undivided family. It is further the case of the intervenor that though the business stood formally in the name of Raghunandan Singh, it was actually Jagdish Singh and after his death the intervenor Ravindra Kumar himself, who managed and operated the petrol pump. It is further stated that in order to avoid any further complications Raghunandan Singh had executed a partnership deed with Jagdish Singh in the year, 1990 and after the death of Raghunandan Singh, both his sons (one of them being the petitioner before the court) executed a fresh partnership deed with Jagdish Singh and Ravindra Kumar Singh in the year, 1992. According to the intervenor an application was also made before the Indian Oil Corporation for adding his name as owner of the petrol-pump. With regard to the piece of land over which the petrol pump is situate, it is stated that it was family land and part of the undivided Hindu family. 6. The case of the intervenor Ravindra Kumar Singh as made out in the intervenor petition may be true or it may not be true. But on the basis of his claim and whatever evidence documentary or oral, he may have in support of his claim, he cannot be permitted to take the law in his own hand and to stop a running petrol pump. 7. The petrol-pump, as seen earlier, stands in the name of the petitioner as appearing from the Dealer Agreement with Indian Oil Corporation. Since the petrol pump was admittedly running till 16.12.2003, the petitioner must be deemed to be in its possession, atleast in the constructive sense, till that date and in case the petrol pump was closed by putting a lock over it, the act of whomsoever did it was without any sanction of a court or any competent authority and hence, quite illegal and unauthorised. 8. In the light of what is stated above, the course is perfectly clear and straight. The petitioner must be allowed to resume the operation of the petrol pump without any delay. 8. In the light of what is stated above, the course is perfectly clear and straight. The petitioner must be allowed to resume the operation of the petrol pump without any delay. Needless to say that the Indian Oil Corporation is ready and anxious to resume the supply to the petitioner in terms of the Dealer Agreement. 9. It may be recorded here that Mr. Jitendra Singh, counsel appearing for the intervenor, fully appreciating the position of his client, stated that he will not commit any unlawful act and shall not disturb the peaceful running of the petrol pump or the petitioners control and possession over it until such time as he may obtain an order final or interlocutory in this regard from a competent court of law. 10. The only issue need to be clarified here is that this order may not be construed as expressing any opinion on the claims of the rival parties. This court is not expressing any opinion on the claim made by the intervenor Ravindra Kumar Singh over the petrol pump and the piece of land over which it is situate. In case Ravindra Kumar Singh files a suit seeking appropriate relief(s) before a civil court of competent jurisdiction or before any other appropriate authority, the suit or the proceeding shall be decided on its own merits and on the basis of the evidences produced by the parties. 11. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.