Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 817
High Court Of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya And Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee, JJ.
JHARNA SARKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 1720 Of 2005
Decided On : 12/22/2006
The amended definition of "Oil Distributing Company" in the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, confers absolute authority on the State-respondent in the matter of supply and distribution of kerosene oil, binding all entities involved, including Oil Distributing Companies.
Headnote:
KEROSENE CONTROL ORDER - OIL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES - SUPPLY OF SKO - LICENCE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION OF DEFINITION - CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION - AUTHORITY OF STATE-RESPONDENT: The amended definition of "Oil Distributing Company" in the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, clearly indicates that such companies are bound to supply SKO to agents having valid licenses on the basis of ration cards tagged with those agents through SK dealers retailers. This amendment reflects the legislative intent to give the State-respondent absolute authority over the distribution and supply of kerosene oil throughout the state, binding everyone from the Oil Distributing Companies to the general public.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, a partnership firm and its representative, challenged the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing their writ petition. The writ petition sought a mandamus directing the State-respondent to ensure the allocation of SKO in conformity with the tagged ration cards in favor of the appellants under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order. The appellants contended that the Indian Oil Corporation, one of the respondents, had illegally curtailed the required quota of kerosene oil for supply to ration-card holders tagged with the appellants. The Indian Oil Corporation, on the other hand, denied any obligation to comply with the State-respondent's directions regarding the allocation of kerosene oil, arguing that the Control Order did not govern the contract between itself and its agents.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the amended definition of "Oil Distributing Company" in the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, clearly indicates that such companies are bound to supply SKO to agents having valid licenses on the basis of ration cards tagged with those agents through SK dealers retailers. This amendment reflects the legislative intent to give the State-respondent absolute authority over the distribution and supply of kerosene oil throughout the state, binding everyone from the Oil Distributing Companies to the general public.
Issues: 1. Whether the Oil Distributing Companies are bound to supply kerosene oil to the various agents in accordance with the quota fixed by the State-respondent by way of tagging ration-cards to the agents? 2. Whether the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, as amended, applies to the Indian Oil Corporation, and whether the corporation is bound to adhere to its provisions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the amended definition of "Oil Distributing Company" in the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, to mean that such companies are bound to supply SKO to agents having valid licenses on the basis of ration cards tagged with those agents through SK dealers retailers. 2. The Court held that the Indian Oil Corporation, as an Oil Distributing Company within the meaning of the Control Order, is bound by its provisions and cannot ignore the State-respondent's decision tagging a particular number of ration-card-holders to a particular agent.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and directed the State-respondent to ensure the allocation of SKO in conformity with the tagged ration cards in favor of the appellants under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order.
( 1 ) THIS mandamus appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful writ petitioners and is directed against the order dated november 25, 2005, passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship dismissed a writ application filed by the present appellants.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to filing of the said writ application may be summarized thus:
" (a) The appellant No. l is a partnership firm being represented by the appellant No. 2, one of its partners. The appellant No. l carries on business as a wholesale dealer in superior kerosene oil (hereinafter referred to as sko) having various storage points including the one situated in Metiabruz and also having the required licence for all the storage points separately and has been receiving supply of SKO from Indian Oil Corporation, one of the respondents herein. (b) The grievance of the appellants in the writ application was that the indian Oil Corporation had illegally curtailed the required quota of the kerosene oil for the supply of the same to the ration-card-holders who are tagged with the appellant No. 1 by virtue of the order passed by the State-respondent in exercise of power conferred under the West Bengal Kerosene control Order, 1968 ("the Control Order") as amended up-to-date. The writ petitioners complained that the Indian Oil Corporation had no right or authority to curb the quota of an agent, which is fixed by the State-respondent by tagging the ration-card-holders of the area to a particular agent. According to the writ petitioners, although they are entitled to an allotment of 218 KL of the Kerosene oil in accordance with the number of tagged ration-cards determined by the State-respondent, the Indian Oil Corporation has illegality reduced the said quota and has supplied 160 KL of Kerosene oil by which it is not possible for the writ petitioners to supply the Kerosene oil to the ration-card-holders attached to their agency. The writ-petitioners, therefore, prayed for mandamus directing the State-respondent to ensure that the allocation of the SKO is made in conformity with the tagged ration-cards in favour of the writ-petitioners under the Control Order. The writ-petitioners further prayed for a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from acting contrary to the provisions of the Control Order and also in violation of the Order dated March 21, 2002 passed by this High court in a previous writ application.
( 3 ) THE writ application was contested by the Indian Oil Corporation by filing aiffdavit-in-opposition thereby denying the allegations made in the writ application. According to the Indian Oil Corporation, it is not bound by any direction given by the State-respondent as regards allocation of Kerosene oil to its agent. The Indian Oil Corporation contended that the Control Order could not guide the contract between itself and its agents. In other words, according to the Indian Oil Corporation, it has the absolute authority to decide the amount of such allotment to its various agents. The Indian Oil corporation, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ application.
( 4 ) THE State-respondent, however, did not file any written objection to the writ application filed by the appellant.
( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge, by the order impugned herein, on consideration of the provisions contained in the Control Order came to the conclusion that power or right to determine the quota of agents of the Oil company is guided by the contract between the Oil Company and its agent and the agents are not under the Control of the Director of Consumer Goods except to the extent of terms and conditions mentioned in the licence but he had nothing to do with the allotment of quota to its agents. As regards the terms and conditions mentioned in the resolution taken by the parties pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in a different writ application, His Lordship was of the view that those terms and conditions were mad
