Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 377 (GAU)

Joshua Riamei v. Nungba Kerosine Agency and Ors.

2006-04-20

H.N.SARMA, T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2006
Heard Mr.H.NK Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Babulindro, learned counsel for the appellant also heard Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned GA as well as Mr.N.Kotiswar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent. 2. Also heard the learned GA in the connected writ appeal filed by the State Government against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.1.2006 passed in WP© No.8 of 2005. 3. The respondent/writ petitioner and the present appellant in WA No.10 of 2006 are authorized SK Oil Dealers of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd in respect of Tamenglong District, Manipur for distribution of SK Oil. The writ petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ Petition, interalia, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondent authorities or any other appropriate writ or order directing the State authorities to allot 140 KL of Kerosene for Tamenglong District and further to allot equal quantity of kerosene to both the dealers, i.e. petitioner and private respondent. 4. Case of the writ petitioner, interalia, is that he is a dealer of SK Oil under the Indian Oil Corporation and is distributing the SK Oil to his allotted areas without any complaint from any quarter. Such allotment of SK Oil is done by the District Administration and when some discrepancies arose in such allotment of SK Oil, the respective dealers, on the intervention of the local public leaders as well as government authorities, an agreement was arrived at on 10.4.2003 by which it was agreed to allot 140 KL of SK Oil per month w.e.f. April, 2003 in respect of the Tamenglong District and the said quantity of SK Oil would be distributed equally through the respective dealers. When the matter was running smoothly, the said quantity of 140 KL of SK Oil was reduced for the district of Tamenglong to 120 KL and that apart the said 120 KL of oil was not distributed equally to the petitioner and respondent and in fact, it is alleged that the petitioner was allotted lesser quantity than the respondent for such distribution. 5. After hearing the concerned parties, vide judgment and order dated 16.1.2006 the Learned Single Judge observed that no apparent justification could be shown by the respondent authorities for unequal distribution of SK Oil amongst the parties and also no acceptable reason could be shown by the State respondents for reducing the quota of SK Oil from 140 KL to 120 KL. Accordingly, it was directed that respondent no.1, i.e. State authority shall take all necessary steps that the monthly quota of Kerosene for Tamenglong District should not be lesser than 140 KL except in abnormal situation and for reasons to be recorded in that connection and that equal quantity of Kerosene is allotted to the petitioner and the private respondent out of the total quota allotted for Tamenglong District except in abnormal situation and for reasons to be recorded in that connection. 6. Mr.H.NK Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that by passing the said order, the petitioner has been put to certain risk in the matter of distribution of SK Oil and in fact it was not for the Court to entertain such dispute and it is the District Administration who is the sole authority for taking such decision. However, learned senior counsel does not object to the first part of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the quota of SK Oil for Tamenglong District should not be reduced from 140 KL to 120 KL except in abnormal situation. The main objection raised by the learned senior counsel is regarding the equal distribution of SK Oil between the two dealers. It is submitted that such distribution should always be made by prorata basis of population required to be served by the dealers 7. The learned GA submitted to the effect that the Indian Oil Authorities are now reducing the allotment of quota of SK Oil to the States and in fact from earlier allotment of 2234 KL it has been reduced to 2132 KL resulting lesser issuance of 102 KL and hence the State authorities have no other alternative but to reduce the quota of allotment to each districts proportionally. It is submitted by the learned State counsel that if the State authorities are directed to allot 140 KL of SK Oil it would be facing anomalous situation inasmuch as they are getting lesser quantity of SK Oil from the Indian Oil Corporation now. 8. It is submitted by the learned State counsel that if the State authorities are directed to allot 140 KL of SK Oil it would be facing anomalous situation inasmuch as they are getting lesser quantity of SK Oil from the Indian Oil Corporation now. 8. Mr.N.Kotiswar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent has submitted that all the aforesaid contentions and objections raised by the appellants have been taken care of by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and it is submitted by the learned counsel that while the State Authorities allotted 140 KL of SK Oil, both the dealers were allotted equal quantity amounting to 70 KL to each of them and the process continued till the reduction in quantity of allotment. Only, on such reduction of allotment from 140 to 120 KL the appellant has been allotted 70 KL whereas the writ petitioner has been allotted only 50 KL of SK Oil and it is submitted that there is no basis or justification for such unequal allotment to the dealers and the same is nothing but discriminatory treatment shown to the petitioner in getting the allotment of quota of SK Oil for public distribution. 9. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties; we have also perused the materials available on record including the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has meticulously considered each and every aspect of the matter and taking note of all the relevant facts and circumstances has passed the impugned judgment and order directing the respondents for allotting 140 KL of SK Oil for the reason that the said District is situated in a difficult geographical area where the demand of SK Oil is very high. Such direction was issued by the learned Single Judge considering the need of the people of the area, of course subject to abnormal situations which has also been noticed in this impugned judgment. The further direction to issue equal quota of SK Oil has been passed by the learned Single Judge apparently on the principle of distributive justice to be rendered between the parties. 10. The further direction to issue equal quota of SK Oil has been passed by the learned Single Judge apparently on the principle of distributive justice to be rendered between the parties. 10. It is an admitted position that although both the dealers are doing their business as dealers of SK Oil, the consideration for granting such dealership is the paramount public interest to be fulfilled by distributing SK Oil to the needy poor people of the backward district of the State and accordingly, the consideration which has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified, to come to a different finding. 11. It is needless to say that the dealers are fighting from their business point of view but the ultimate sufferer is the poor consumers. It is not only the duty but also an obligation to the State authorities including the District Administration that such distribution of SK Oil amongst the needy people are made fairly and reasonably without any complaint from any quarter and to see that no person is deprived of getting their due share. 12. On the aforesaid considerations, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. However, as both the dealers have been directed to allot equal quantity of SK Oil from the allotted quota for the district, equal numbers of consumers shall be fixed to the be supplied with the SK Oil by both the dealers, i.e. the writ petitioner and the respondent/appellant. 13. Subject to the aforesaid modification and direction, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed and both the writ appeals are disposed of accordingly.