Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 589 (JHR)

Petroleum Corporation v. Union of India

2010-05-12

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties on the two interlocutory applications, one filed by the petitioners and another filed by the respondent no. 2. I.A. No. 1847 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to introduce certain amendments in the original writ application. A rejoinder to the interlocutory application has been filed by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ application has been filed for the following relief(s): i. For issuance of a direction upon the respondents, in particular the respondent no. 2, to sign the Form-III DTO Licence Form and certify the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 as the dealer of the respondent no. 2 for running the retail outlet at the place where it was established. ii. For restraining the respondents from unlawfully preventing the petitioner no. 1 from running the business of retail outlet of the respondent no. 2. iii. For quashing the inspection report dated 3.1.2008 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 whereby, the petitioner have been called upon to show-cause as to why action for terminating the retail outlet dealer of the respondent no. 2, should not be passed. 3. Learned counsel explains that this court while admitting the writ application, had, vide its order dated 19.3.2009, passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the writ application. Yet, the respondent no. 3 by his order dated 17.3.2010, has intimated to the petitioner that the dealership agreement which the petitioner had entered into with the respondents, has been terminated with immediate effect and the petitioner has also been asked to depute his representative to be present at the retail outlet site for the purpose of enabling the respondents to take away the articles from the site. Learned counsel submits further that considering the aforesaid subsequent development which had transpired during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner needs to amend his writ application to include a further prayer for quashing the order as contained in the letter dated 17.3.2010 issued by the respondent no. 3 and to include a corresponding statement of facts, to paragraph-29 of the writ application, as mentioned in paragraph-5(b) of the interlocutory application. 4. 3 and to include a corresponding statement of facts, to paragraph-29 of the writ application, as mentioned in paragraph-5(b) of the interlocutory application. 4. Disputing the prayer for amendment, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that the additional prayer sought to be introduced by way of amendment of the original writ application, is totally misconceived and misleading for the following reasons: i. The proposed additional prayer would change the nature of the original relief(s} claimed by the petitioner in the writ application which was confined only to the issue as to whether the respondents were liable to sign and execute the Form-II/DTO Licence Form in favour of the petitioner. ii. The decision for termination of the dealership of the petitioner was taken in exercise of the rights reserved for the respondents under the dealership agreement which could be exercised in the event the dealer commits any act of misconduct. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents explains that in course of the inspection carried out at the retail outlet of the petitioner, certain grave irregularities amounting to malpractices, were detected and considering the same as acts of misconduct, and acts amounting to violation of the dealership agreement, a show-cause notice, was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why his dealership should not be terminated and being not satisfied with the show-cause replies, the respondents, in exercise of their right, had proceeded to terminate the dealership. Such action on the part of the respondents, involving the disputed question of facts and undertaken in exercise of the rights reserved under the dealership agreement, cannot be adjudicated upon by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits further that the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of appeal which he could prefer against the impugned order of termination of his dealership. 6. From the admitted facts and referring to the claim originally made by the petitioner in his writ application, it appears that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to renew his licence for running the retail outlet and being apprehensive that his dealership may be terminated arbitrarily by the respondents, had sought for the corresponding relief(s) for preventing the respondents from taking arbitrary action against the petitioner. From the original pleadings in the writ application, it appears that the petitioner had disputed the grounds on which the respondents have sought to terminate the dealership of the petitioner. Upon considering the preliminary submissions, this writ application was admitted for hearing. The order of terminating the dealership is a subsequent development which appears to have followed consequent to the impugned show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. By the addition of the proposed relief(s) in respect of the impugned order of termination of the dealership, in my opinion, the original relief(s) claimed by the petitioner, would not undergo any change since, it is only an extension of the earlier relief(s) particularly, the relief in respect of the impugned show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. As regards allowing the additional prayer, it would depend upon the merits of the case which can be decided only after hearing the parties on merits. 8. In the light of the above discussions, the prayer for amendment is allowed. I.A. No. 1847 of 2010 shall form part of the original writ application. 9. I.A. No. 1245 of 2010 has been filed by the respondent no. 2 praying for clarification, modification and for vacating the order of status quo dated 19.3.2009. A rejoinder to the I.A. has been filed by the petitioners. 10. Counsel for the respondent informs that by its decision dated 17.3.2010, the respondents have terminated the dealership of the petitioner and consequently, the present writ application itself has become in-fructuous as because, licence of the petitioners to deal in petroleum products, has been cancelled by the respondents by issuance of the order dated 17.3.2010. Under such circumstances, since the petitioner no. 1 is no more authorized to function as a dealer under the respondent no. 2 for running the retail outlet at the present site, the respondents are entitled to remove the existing machineries from the site which were earlier installed for the purpose of running the retail outlet. It is further stated that since on the date of passing of the order of maintaining status quo, the dealership of the petitioner was not terminated, but in view of the changed circumstances, dealership having been terminated, the petitioner is no more entitled to retain the machineries and other articles at the site. It is further stated that since on the date of passing of the order of maintaining status quo, the dealership of the petitioner was not terminated, but in view of the changed circumstances, dealership having been terminated, the petitioner is no more entitled to retain the machineries and other articles at the site. Learned counsel explains further that consequent upon the liberty granted to the respondents by this court by its order dated 12.5.2008, the respondents have taken all the petroleum products lying in the said retail outlet into their custody on 9.3.2000 and have kept the proceeds thereof in a separate account. 11. As it appears from the order dated 19.3.2009, it was only after considering the preliminary submissions of the parties, and considering the dispute raised, that it was felt appropriate that the parties should maintain status quo till the disposal of the writ application. The impugned notice issued by the respondents directing the petitioner to depute a representative to remain present at the site to enable the respondents to remove the machineries and other articles from the site, was therefore uncalled for and such action on the part of the respondents would invite upon them the blame of violating the order of status quo. Furthermore, the order of termination of the dealership has also been challenged by the petitioner and the dispute arising there from, is yet to be decided on merits. 12. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to either clarify or modify or vacate the order of status quo at this stage. Consequently, the prayer as made by the respondent no. 2 in the I.A. No. 1245 of 2010 is rejected. 13. Since the matter has assumed certain amount of urgency, let this case be posted in the 2nd week on reopening of the court after summer vacations.