Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 1799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
LPG Vitrak Association (Bihar) - Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6375 of 2019, 14607 of 2019
Decided On : 16-09-2019
For the Petitioners: Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr.Adv. Mr. R.B. Singhal, Sr.Adv. Mr. Puneet Siddhartha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sahi, Adv. Mr. R.K.Singh, Adv. Mr. Aryan Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv.
Headnote:
Administrative Law – Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Applicability – Doctrine of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel is well established principles in administrative law and it represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice – Where a party to contract has by his word or conduct made to other party an unequivocal promise or representation by word or conduct and other party acted upon on the basis of said promise, assurance or representation and has altered his position to his detriment or promise, party on whose promise other party has changed his position should not be permitted to go back as it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to dealing between parties – Authority ought not act to defeat principle of legitimate expectation – Doctrine of legitimate expectation imposes an essence of duty on public authority to act fairly taking into consideration of all relevant facts. (Paras 12 and 13)
Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19(1)(G) and 226 – Transfer of LPG customers to another LPG distributor without taking prior consent of customers – IOC has reserved its right to appoint one or more additional distributor in same territory and they shall be entitled to make sales of Indane in same territory without any objection from distributor – IOC may give a target to distributor to effect minimum sales of Indane in accordance with policy from time to time and shall also be entitled to reduce, restrict, modify or alter area of distributorship territory and decision of IOC shall be final and binding on distributor – In effect what is being done is that core area which is area of advertised location of a distributor is not being disturbed – It is only those customers who are falling outside core area of donor and trading area of donor but are being served by donor distributor will get transferred to recipient distributor in whose trading area customers will fall – In case of a sincere customer friendly recipient distributor information may be furnished to transferred consumer on very next day of transfer and in case of an inefficient and time taking recipient distributor it may take a week or month in reaching to customer – So far as broad policy of inter-company transfer of consumers dated 30.11.2018 is concerned, save and except views expressed by this Court on modalities of transfer of consumer and in matter of blockade of supplies to them which are required to be suitably altered/amended, there is nothing against public interest rather whole purpose behind it is in public interest. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 37 and 50)
Cases Referred:
Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243; Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs. Rabi Sankar Patro, AIR 2017 SC 5179 : (2018)1 SCC 468 – Relied.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489; M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCC 409; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 86, Union of India vs. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd., (1985) 4 SCC 369, Kasinka Trading vs. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274; Navjyoti Corporation Group Housing Society vs. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 477; Union of India vs. G. Ganayuthum, (1997) 7 SCC 463; Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Saghir Ahmad vs. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728, M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156; LIC of India vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre, (1995) 5 SCC 482; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216; Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517; Air India vs. Cochin International Airport, (2000) 2 SCC 617; Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2003) 1 SCC 341 – Referred.
JUDGMENT :
These two writ applications involve common questions for consideration and as such on the prayer of learned counsel for the parties both the writ applications have been heard together.
2. Mr. R.B. Singhal, learned senior counsel has represented the petitioner in CWJC No.14607 of 2019 and his statement has been recorded in the order dated 24.07.2019 saying that the said writ application required no separate pleadings and it may be disposed off with the first case on the basis of the pleadings available on the record of the said case.
3. Petitioner in CWJC No.6375 of 2019 is LPG Vitrak Association is said to be a Registered Association of the LPG Distributors under the Society Registration Act, 1860. The petitioners have belatedly in order to fill up the deficiency filed supplementary affidavit giving the name of the members of the Association and separate court fees have been paid on their behalf. The petitioner while filing the writ application no.6375 of 2019 prayed for the following reliefs:-
“ (A) A writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s direction/s quashing the following:
(i) The Guidelines for Inter Company Transfer of Connections dated 30.11.2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned guidelines’) issued by Respondent No.2 to 10, wherein, the customers of the LPG Distributors are being transferred to other LPG Distributors without any show cause or chance of hearing and without taking into consideration the huge investments made by the LPG Distributors for enrolling their hard earned customers and forming a goodwill in the market.
(B) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s direction/s for the following reliefs:
(i) To call for all the records of Guidelines for Inter Company Transfer of Connections dated 30.11.2018, showing the procedure followed by the Respondent authorities for framing of such guidelines.
(ii) To restrain the respondent authorities from giving effect to the Guidelines for Inter Company Transfer of Connections dated 30.11.2018, till disposal of the instant case.
(C) To any other relief/s to which the petitioner is found entitled to.”
4. During the pendency of the writ application by filing I.A. No.2 of 2019 some newly appointed non-viable LPG Distributors of Oil Companies prayed for their impleadment on the ground that quashment of the guidelines for Inter Company Transfer of connections dated 30.11.2018 issued by the respondent Oil Corporations would adversely affect their interest, hence they should be heard.
5. I.A. No.2 of 2019 was allowed and the intervenors have been added as party respondent nos.11 to 19.
6. Writ petitioner has filed I.A. No.3 of 2019 for amendment of the writ application. In the I.A. the petitioner has raised some more grounds and prayed for allowing amendments in paragraph 1 of the writ application by adding one prayer no.1(A) (ii) in the following terms:-
“(ii) To quash Clause 1.b.(iii) and 1.b.(iv) of the Distributorship Agreement entered between Respondent Corporation and LPG Distributors being illegal, contradictory to other clauses of the Agreement, oppressive, arbitrary and ultra vires the Agreement as well the Constitution of India.”
7. Parties have made their respective submissions. Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel, Mr. R.B. Singhal, learned senior counsel and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel assisted by learned advocates on record have argued for the petitioner in both the writ applications whereas Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Prasad and Ankit Katriar, learned advocates have defended the Oil Companies. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned advocate has led the argument on behalf of the intervenorrespondents. Mrs. Kanak Verma, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Union of India.
8. It is the case of the petitioner in CWJC No.6375 of 2019 that the LPG Distributors connected with the Oil Manuf
