Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
Shivam Petrol Station - Appellant
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 12658 of 2016
Decided On : 05-05-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 and 226 – Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005 – Violation of guidelines - Quash of Order – Lease Agreement - Seeking direction to respondent to restore sales and supply of retail outlet of petitioner - Whether respondent has allotted said place to any other person by executing any agreement – Alleged that Officers of respondent visited outlet of petitioner. It was informed that no inspection was to be carried out and same will be done after three to four days. Thereafter a team of authorised representative visited retail outlet of petitioner and carried out inspection. Inspection report was duly signed by both parties. At this stage, it is contended that on same day, letter purported to have been written was handed over to retail outlet whereby it was informed that one inspection was carried out observing some violations of Guidelines, 2005 (MDG) and supplies of product was suspended with immediate effect.
Finding of the court: petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings - Petition is maintainable and this Court can exercise the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India vested in it and interfere with the decision taken by the respondent - Petitioners' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, appellants should have been allowed relief by High Court itself instead of driving them to need of initiating arbitration proceedings. - It is pertinent to note that learned advocate for the respondent, after taking instructions, submitted that though dealership of petitioner has been terminated in the year 2013, till date, the same has not been awarded to any other party. Thus, the place in question is still vacant. Further, dealership agreement was executed on 31.12.2010 for a period of fifteen years i.e. upto 31.12.2025 - Court view that this is a fit case, in which, the impugned order dated 10.08.2013 is required to be quashed and set aside.
Result: Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 10.08.2013 passed by the respondent be quashed and set aside and, thereby, the respondent be directed to restore sales and supply of retail outlet of the petitioner.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.D.C. Sejpal for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Mitul K. Shelat for the respondent.
3. Looking to the issue involved in the present petition and as the petition is pending at admission stage since 2016, the learned advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that this petition be heard and finally disposed of at admission stage. Hence, Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Mitul Shelat waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Sejpal appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent issued an advertisement inviting application from people at large for the purpose of allotment of retail outlet. The application submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent after due verification. It is submitted that the petitioner is having retail outlet of the respondent since 31.12.2010. A dealership agreement was executed for fifteen years. It is submitted that Undertaking was taken from the petitioner that if allotment is made in her favour, she will execute a Lease Agreement for the land from the land owner and the same is also duly executed, which is still in force.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Sejpal thereafter submitted that on 25.04.2012, it is alleged that the Officers of the respondent visited the outlet of the petitioner. It was informed that no inspection was to be carried out and the same will be done after three to four days. Thereafter, on 30.04.2012, a team of authorised representative visited the retail outlet of the petitioner and carried out the inspection. The inspection report was duly signed by both the parties. At this stage, it is contended that on the same day, the letter purported to have been written on 25.04.2012 was handed over to the retail outlet whereby it was informed that one inspection was carried out on 25.04.2012 observing some violations of Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005 (MDG) and supplies of the product was suspended with immediate effect. At this stage, it is pointed out by the learned advocate Mr.Sejpal that if the actual inspection which was carried out on 30.04.2012 is carefully seen, some glaring contradictions emerged from the report as well as the conduct of the officers of the respondent, from which, it can be said that no inspection was carried out on 25.04.2012. It is submitted that as per the letter dated 25.04.2012, if some violation of the MDG was noticed, why the supply was made to the petitioner’s outlet upto 30.04.2012 and if there is a violation of MDG, there was no need for team to visit once again on 30.04.2012. It is also pointed out that even presuming that inspection was carried out on 25.04.2012 as alleged, then column of the inspection report would mention the date of last visit as 25.04.2012 but in fact, the column mentions the date of previous visit as 20.03.2012. Learned advocate would further submit that there are no discrepancies except short supply even as per the inspection report. It is contended that the report further mentions that inspection has been carried out using mechanical totalizer. The report also confirms after physical verification by the officers that weight and measures seals including totalizer seals are intact. Thus, learned advocate Mr.Sejpal would submit that some vested interests are operating against the petitioner and the petitioner is victimized.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Sejpal further submitted that in response to the alleged communication dated 25.04.2012 handed over to the petitioner on 30.04.2012, a detailed communication was addressed to the respondent on 01.05.2012 wherein the petitioner has pointed out the relevant aspects and it is stated that no report for
Dealership - Allotment of retail outlet - Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is rule of discretion and not one of compulsion - Inspite of availability of alt....
The court upheld the termination of the dealership agreement based on the critical irregularities as per the Marketing Discipline Guidelines.
The judgment established that administrative decisions based on misreading of documents, ignorance of evidence, and without recording reasons are arbitrary and violative of principles of natural just....
The Court held that the authorities' decision to terminate the dealership agreement was not arbitrary or unreasonable and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available through a pending civ....
The court emphasized that termination of a dealership must follow due process and that Writ jurisdiction can be invoked when fundamental rights are at stake, despite the existence of alternative reme....
The court emphasized the importance of providing accurate and complete information in the application for dealership agreements, and upheld the contractual grounds for termination based on the incorr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
