Point of Law: Termination of dealership - Action of termination against critical irregularities has to be approved by Regional Head/State Head/Zonal Head of the Oil Company (General Manager and above) and in respect of SC/ST category dealerships, the termination has to be approved by the Director (Marketing) HQ

ORDER :

It is a remand matter. In W.A.No.107/2020, a Division Bench of this Court passed order on 21.08.2020 as follows:

“11. In view of foregoing considerations, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set-aside. On filing a detailed reply by the respondent to the contentions as advanced, the learned Single Judge shall hear and decide the Writ Petition as per Law. While disposing appeal, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case, however, learned Single Judge may decide it as per own wisdom. The finding recorded herein above is only to consider the dismissal of the Writ Petition for want of having an efficacious alternative remedy, and not to the merits.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and disposed of restoring W.P.No.41129 of 2018 to its file. On restoration, Writ Petition be placed for hearing before appropriate Single Judge as per roster”

That is how the W.P.No.41129/2018 which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 01.11.2019 has been restored to file for fresh consideration.

2. In W.P.No.41129/2018, the petitioner challenged the termination order dated 09.10.2018 passed by 2nd respondent terminating the dealership of retail outlet held by the petitioner. The petitioner was a dealer of the 1st respondent company from 1968 and his dealership agreement was renewed from time-to-time and the last renewal was made on 09.10.2015 valid up to 2030.

3. According to the petitioner, the three dispensing units installed at his filling centre for supply of petrol and diesel were giving constant trouble since 2016 and as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner used to give complaints but they were not attended properly. It was elaborately stated in paragraph Nos.4 to 9 of the writ petition affidavit as to how many times the petitioner used to make complaints about faulty functioning of the dispensing units and the visit of Engineers of the respondent Corporation and their finding the variation in the stock etc. without rectifying the defects etc.

(a) While so, the further case of the petitioner is that on 14.06.2018 some of the officials of the respondent Corporation visited the retail outlet of the petitioner during his absence and sealed the pumps and stocks and called him to the outlet and on his visit they obtained his signatures on the inspection report as if he was present at the time of inspection. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.06.2018 clearly stating therein that the respondent officials were not evincing interest in rectifying/repairing the faulty DUs and they have also not resumed supplies to retail outlets and requested them to supply the oil.

(b) As against the said letter, the respondent issued a letter dated 10.07.2018 stating that they received a complaint that despite suspension of supplies to his R.O., the petitioner procured some products from some unauthorised stores and sold them to general public without any authorisation from the respondent Corporation. It was further stated that to investigate the complaint a team of officers from Vijayawada D.O. visited the petitioner outlet on 14.06.2018 and observed what transpired there and called for the explanation. The petitioner denied having procured the products unauthorizedly and sold them in his outlet. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 18.07.2018 and when there was no restoration of supplies, he filed W.P.No.27451/2018. The writ petition was disposed of on 07.09.2018 directing the respondent to consider the explanation and pass orders on merits.

(c) The petitioner’s grievance is that despite the said order, his representations were not considered. Therefore, the petitioner visited the office of 2nd respondent on 03.10.2018 to enquire about the same. The respondents informed him that as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court, they fixed the hearing to that date i.e., 03.10.2018 and asked him certain general questions which he replied