Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1461 (GAU)

Rasana Das v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2015-11-24

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appears for the respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9. The learned Government Advocate Ms. R. Gogoi appears for the respondents 6, 7 & 10. 2. The matter pertains to the SK Oil dealership at Karimganj which was granted on 20.3.1965 to Mr. Bisweswar Das. During the lifetime of the dealer, he applied for re-constitution of the dealership to convert into a partnership firm and to induct the petitioner as the 2nd partner of the dealership concern. The re-constitution of the dealership was approved by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the IOCL.”) on 7.11.1996 (Annexure-III) and the petitioner and her husband Bisweswar Das were recognized as the partners of the dealer i.e. M/s Bisweswar Das & Son. 3. But even before approval to the re-constitution of the dealership could be conveyed on 7.11.1996, the sole dealer Bisweswar Das expired on 30.10.1996 and therefore the IOCL. did not act upon the approval to the dealership of M/s Bisweswar Das & Son and instead diverted the sub Agents under the dealer, to another agent at Karimganj through, the company’s decision dated 20.11.1996. 4. The above decision was challenged by the petitioner by filing the Civil Rule NO.549/1997 where the 1st wife and son (Jyotsna Das and Gautam Das of Late Bisweswar Das) were arrayed as respondents 7 & 8. This case was disposed of on 18.11.2003 (Annexure-V) wherein the High Court directed the IOCL. to consider and decide the rival claims of the petitioner and the two private respondents, in respect of re-constitution of the S.K oil dealership at Karimganj. 5. Thereafter the representation was filed by the petitioner and she was directed to produce the Succession Certificate by the competent authority of the oil company. In the meantime, Gautam Das filed the Title Suit No.16/1997 against the petitioner but eventually this case (re-numbered as the Title Suit No.383/2006) was not pursued by the plaintiff Gautam Das and accordingly the suit was dismissed for default on 4.10.1997. 6. In the meantime, Gautam Das filed the Title Suit No.16/1997 against the petitioner but eventually this case (re-numbered as the Title Suit No.383/2006) was not pursued by the plaintiff Gautam Das and accordingly the suit was dismissed for default on 4.10.1997. 6. Meanwhile the learned District Judge, Karimganj in the Misc.(Succession) Case No.197/2006 filed by the petitioner under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 granted the succession on 17.9.2008 (Annexure-IX) and this Succession Certificate was produced by the petitioner only on 3.12.2008 before the IOCL which delayed the consideration of the petitioner’s representation for re-constitution of the dealership. 7. Eventually the WP(C) No.5891/2010 came to be filed by the petitioner which was disposed of on 18.4.2011 (Annexure-XIX) by directing the IOCL to dispose of the petitioner’s representation for re-constitution of the dealership, with a speaking order. 8. Following the above direction given by the High Court, the General Manager of the Company on 29.7.2011 passed the impugned order whereby the representation for revival of the S.K. Oil dealership at Karimganj was disallowed on the ground that the dealership is inoperative since 1996. For this decision, the General Manager invoked Clause 4.5 & 4.6 of the IOCL’s Policy Guideline dated 9.10.2006. 9.1 Assailing the legality of the impugned decision, the petitioner contends that vested right has accrued to her through application for re-constitution of the dealership made during the lifetime of her husband Bisweswar Das and such vested right can’t be extinguished through retrospective operation of the time limit prescribed through the IOCL guideline dated 9.10.2006. 9.2 Referring to Clause 2.2.5 of the guideline dated 9.10.2006, Mr. B.R. Dey, the learned Senior Counsel submits that this was a case for re-constitution of the dealership applied during the lifetime of the petitioner’s husband Bisweswar Das and therefore such consideration is not restricted by any time frame as provided by Clause 2.2.5 of the applicable guideline. 10. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the IOCL submits that the S.K. oil dealership at Karimganj is inoperative since 1996 after the appointed dealer Bisweswar Das died on 30.10.1996 and accordingly the Senior Counsel argues that this is a case of revival of dealership where the limitation period prescribed by Clause 4.5 & 4.6 of the guideline dated 9.10.2006 will apply. Therefore in the facts of the present case, Mr. Therefore in the facts of the present case, Mr. Choudhury submits that the impugned decision dated 29.7.2011 of the General Manager should be left undisturbed. 11. The S.K. oil dealership at Karimganj was in the name of the petitioner’s husband Bisweswar Das and as the sole dealer, Bisweswar Das during his lifetime applied for re-constitution of the dealership into a partnership firm and to induct his wife Rasana Das as the partner of the firm. After due consideration, the re-consideration of the dealership into a partnership firm was approved by the oil company on 7.11.1996 but unfortunately a few days before the IOCL’s order, the sole dealer Bisweswar Das died on 30.10.1996. Therefore the dealership under the partnership name was not allowed to operate and the sub-agents under the dealer were attached with another dealer of Karimganj town. 12. When we examine the petitioner’s application in the context of the above facts, it is clear that a vested right accrues to the petitioner following the application of the existing dealer Bisweswar Das, as he made the application during his lifetime. Therefore such vested right in my opinion can’t be extinguished through retrospective operation of the limitation clauses in the subsequent guideline of 9.10.2006 of the IOCL. 13. Next when we examine the impugned decision, it is seen that the petitioner’s representation was considered as revival of the S.K. dealership where a limitation period is prescribed under Clause 4.5 & 4.6 of the guideline. But as earlier held, the provisions of the guideline dated 9.10.2006 can’t be retrospectively applied to deny a vested right to the petitioner. Moreover this being a case of re-constitution of the dealership, the provisions of Clause 2.2.5 should have been applied and I do not find that the General Manager was justified in invoking the Clause 4.5 & 4.6, to deny the petitioner’s claim. 14. The claim for re-constitution of dealership was made during the lifetime of the petitioner’s husband and during all these years, the petitioner had continued to push forward her claim in the face of diverse litigation. Eventually after getting the Succession Certification from the competent Court, she submitted the same as asked for by the competent authority. Therefore the petitioner’s application should have been considered as one originating from her husband during his lifetime and the same should not have been considered as a time barred application. Eventually after getting the Succession Certification from the competent Court, she submitted the same as asked for by the competent authority. Therefore the petitioner’s application should have been considered as one originating from her husband during his lifetime and the same should not have been considered as a time barred application. Therefore the reasoning given in the impugned order dated 29.7.2011 is found to be unacceptable and the same is quashed accordingly. 15. In view of the above conclusion, the authorities are directed to take appropriate action for allotment of the S.K. oil dealership to the petitioner as the successor of her husband Late Bisweswar Das, who was the appointed dealer for Karimganj. Necessary process for granting of dealership should be completed within 3 months from today and it is made clear that the dealership can be granted in the name of the existing firm M/s Bisweswar Das & Son. With this order, the case stands allowed to the extent indicated. No cost.