The court upheld the termination of a dealership agreement due to the petitioner's provision of incorrect documentation, affirming the authority of the respondent under the terms of the agreement.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

“To issue writ of mandamus to declaring the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent passed in TDO/ATP/24 dated 07.03.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

2. The facts of the case are that, in response to the Notification dated 19.12.2003, issued by the 1^st respondent/IOCL, which called for applications from physically handicapped individuals for the position of retail outlet dealer at Yerraguntlapalli, Anantapur District, the petitioner, being physically handicapped and meeting the qualifications, submitted an application. Following the selection process, the petitioner was chosen by the selection committee, and a Letter of Intent was issued on 20.10.2004. Subsequently, an appointment letter dated 02.09.2005, was issued, officially appointing the petitioner as the dealer for the retail outlet at Yerraguntlapalli. After securing the necessary statutory permissions, the petitioner began operations and has been conducting the business in full compliance with the terms of the agreement and all other relevant statutory regulations.

3. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent, the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, issued a notice dated 07.05.2007, stating that the petitioner’s application for the allotment of a retail outlet dealership was incomplete. Specifically, the petitioner had failed to provide proof of age and educational qualifications. Additionally, the medical certificate submitted in support of petitioner’s eligibility under the physically handicapped (PH) category was deemed invalid, as it was not issued by an authorized competent authority. Furthermore, the petitioner had not met the required tied- up volume, as indicated in the original application. In the light of these deficiencies, the petitioner was directed to show cause within two weeks as to why the petrol/HSD pump dealership agreement, dated 24.09.2005, should not be terminated in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

4. In response to the notice dated 07.05.2007, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation refuting the allegations made against him. He specifically stated that all required documents were submitted at the time of application, and that these documents were cross-checked by the company during the interview process and duly satisfied before the petitioner was formally considered by the selection committee. The petitioner further clarified that he had met the sales targets set by the company, while also providing reasons for his failure to meet the earlier target. Additionally, the petitioner emphasized his status as a physically handicapped individual and expressed his willingness to undergo verification by a qualified medical professional. He also highlighted that the retail outlet dealership was his sole source of livelihood and requested to drop the alleged and invented proceedings against him.

5. Despite receipt of the petitioner’s detailed explanation, the second respondent did not issue any order, and as a result, the petitioner was not supplied with the products necessary to run subject retail outlet. Challenging the unilateral action of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13164 of 2007, wherein this Court directed was pleased dispose of the writ petition, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the detailed explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Thereupon, the 3^rd respondent passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner had produced an invalid certificate and mislead the selection committee. It was further stated that the petitioner furnished wrong information with regard to ownership of the trucks and buses. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, denying material allegations, primarily contending the writ peti