Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 455 (MP)

Santosh v. Union of India

2015-04-21

S.C.SHARMA

body2015
ORDER 1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No.1015/2014 are narrated hereunder. 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of respondents No.3 and 4, inviting applications for LPG Distributorship for location Manasa village Mahagarh, village Pipliyaraoji and village Sawan. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that he is the proprietor of M/s. Vallabh Indane and the Distributorship was awarded to him by respondent No.3 – Indian Oil Corporation for the city of Manasa and the area falling within 15 kms radius from Manasa. It has been further stated that by virtue of an advertisement a second dealer is being appointed and, therefore, the advertisement is bad in law. 4. A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondent – Corporation is that clause 2 of the Agreement executed between the Oil Company and the petitioner empowers the Oil Company to appoint one or more additional distributors in the territory referred in clause 1(a) meaning thereby, the agreement permits the Corporation to appoint more than one dealer in the area in which the petitioner’s agency is operational. Similarly, attention of this Court has been drawn towards clause 1(b)(iv) of the same agreement. The same permits the Oil Company to extend the area or to reduce the area of operation in respect of existing dealer and, therefore, contention of the Oil Company is that they have rightly issued an advertisement for appointment of a Distributor. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. 6. This Court has very carefully gone through the agreement in question. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. 6. This Court has very carefully gone through the agreement in question. Clause 1(b)(ii) and (iv) reads as under : (ii) The Corporation reserves the right, without any reference to or consent of the Distributor, to appoint one or more additional distributors in the same territory referred to in clause 1(a) above and such additional distributor or distributors shall be entitled to make sales of Indane in the same territory without any objection from the Distributor and the Distributor shall not be entitled to claim any over-riding remuneration, commission or allowance for the purpose. (iv) The distributor will during the continuance of this Agreement confine himself to effect the sales in the area or territory specified hereinabove but the Corporation shall be entitled without the consent of the Distributor to enlarge, reduce, increase or modify such area or territory to such other place as may from time to time be authorised by the Corporation in writing. 7. The aforesaid clause in the agreement makes it very clear that the Oil Company is certainly having a right to appoint one or more Distributors in the same territory. Not only this, the Oil Company is also having a liberty to extend or to reduce the area and keeping in view clause (ii) and (iv) and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Oil Company has rightly issued the impugned advertisement. Not only this, a similar matter has been decided by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan in the case of Prem Pal Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and others (Writ Petition No.10524/2009), and the Rajasthan High Court in the aforesaid case has held that the Indian Oil Corporation cannot be restrained from appointing a second dealer and it is purely a policy matter and the Oil Company, keeping in view the agreement between the parties is certainly free to appoint a second dealer. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maa Narmada Indane, Shivpuri v. Union of India and others [Writ Appeal No.114/2014, decided on 15.4.2014], has taken a similar view of the matter. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maa Narmada Indane, Shivpuri v. Union of India and others [Writ Appeal No.114/2014, decided on 15.4.2014], has taken a similar view of the matter. Not only this, this Court in the case of Sandeep s/o Kailash v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., [Writ Petition No.13203/2013, decided on 23.7.2014], has passed the following order: Writ Petition No.13203 /2013 23.7.2014 Parties through their counsel. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an advertisement issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. inviting applications for Rajiv Gandhi, LPG Distributor. The contention of the petitioner is that he is having a distributor ship at village Kampel and now in respect of village Piplada an advertisement has been issued. This Court has categorically asked a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner to inform any statutory provisions of law/any notification/any policy which restricts the Oil Company to grant distributorship/dealership in the same localities once they have already granted dealership and distributorship to a person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any statutory provisions of law/notification/policy, which restricts the Oil Company for grant of any subsequent dealership. In absence of any statutory provisions of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has filed a reply and the agreement executed between the parties has also been filed. clause II of the agreement make it very clear that the Oil Company can appoint one or more dealer in the same locality. Once there is a specific clause in respect of appointment of another distributor in the agreement, which has been executed between the parties, no case for interference in the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is made out. The admission is declined. No order as to costs. 9. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Oil Companies are certainly free to issue another advertisement for appointing another Dealer in the same territory and, therefore, the question of interference by this Court with the advertisements dated 16.1.2014, 8.9.2013 and 19.9.2013, which are impugned in the present writ petition, does not arise. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.