Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.
M/S BALAJI INDANE GRAMIN VITARAK - Appellant
Versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9652 of 2021
Decided On : 09-07-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Dealership agreement has also been entered into simultaneously on the same day - Rehabilitation and Special Land Acquisition - Breach of the terms of licence - Whether requirement is falling within the eligibility criteria of RGGLV and as such, it is not correct - Whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme of the statute in which the duty has been set out - Case of petitioner is that the petitioner firm is a proprietary firm owned by as a proprietor who is awarded LPG distributorship. Pursuant to following all the procedures in response to advertisement which was issued by respondent no. 1, a letter of intent - respondent no. 1. Having found the petitioner as suitable for such dealership, a field verification was also undertaken about location which was shown by the petitioner in application form itself and it is only after carrying out the process, LPG dealership was given to the petitioner and letter of appointment was also issued - dealership agreement has also been entered into simultaneously on the same day - Petitioner that after issuance of appointment letter, petitioner was required to get necessary various permissions to start the dealership from various authorities and upon due verification, various authorities have granted licence to petitioner as the petitioner is fulfilling strictly all criteria fixed by the said authorities - Case of petitioner that the petitioner owned one plot no. 9 at but since the petitioner was not residing at the said place for about more than 25 years and was residing at Village Tokarwa, Taluka : Uchchal, he requested to the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Scheme- 2 to allot a plot at in exchange of plot at Vadpada by way of applications - petitioner offered the said allotted plot to respondent no. 1 for the purpose - After appointment as distributor of LPG, the petitioner also constructed godown on the said allotted plot which according the petitioner was inspected by various authorities for complying safety measures –
Finding of the Court:
Court held that it is primarily the responsibility and duty of a statutory authority to take a decision and it should be enabled to exercise its discretion independently - If the authority does not exercise its mind independently, the decision taken by the statutory authority can be quashed and a direction given to take an independent decision is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by use of the words shall or must - court may take a decision without leaving it to the statutory authority to do so – Court must caution that if the court were to take over decision taking power of the statutory authority it must only be in exceptional circumstances and not as a routine. Insofar as the present case is concerned - High Court has not given any reason why it virtually took over the decision taking function of the authorities and for this reason alone the mandamus issued by the High Court deserves to be set aside, apart from the merits of case which we have already adverted - Petition is at a show cause notice - Court is not inclined to entertain, however, it is observed that Court has not expressed any conclusive opinion on the stand taken by the petitioner as the authority is to take appropriate decision on –
Result: Petition stands dismissed
ORDER :
1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he petitioner has approached this Court for seeking the following reliefs :-
(b) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue the writ of certiorari and/ or writ of appropriate nature quashing and setting aside the issuance of the show cause notice dated 22.06.2021 by the respondent.
(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to stay the implementation of the show cause notice.
(d) Pending hearing an final disposal of the petition Your Lordships will be pleased to restrain respondent from terminating the Distributorship Agreement entered into with the respondent.
(e) Your Lordships will be pleased to grant an ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of para 35(c) and 35(d) of the petition.
(f) Your Lordships will be pleased to allow the petition.
(g) …….
(h) …….”
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner firm is a proprietary firm owned by Mr. Nitinkumar Jugal Kishore Sharma as a proprietor who is awarded LPG distributorship. Pursuant to following all the procedures in response to the advertisement which was issued by respondent no. 1, a letter of intent dated 19.05.2014 is issued by respondent no. 1. Having found the petitioner as suitable for such dealership, a field verification was also undertaken about location which was shown by the petitioner in application form itself and it is only after carrying out the process, LPG dealership was given to the petitioner and letter of appointment was also issued on 08.04.2015. The dealership agreement has also been entered into simultaneously on the same day.
2.1. It is further the case of the petitioner that after issuance of appointment letter, the petitioner was required to get necessary various permissions to start the dealership from various authorities and upon due verification, various authorities have granted licence to the petitioner as the petitioner is fulfilling strictly all criteria fixed by the said authorities. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner owned one plot no. 9 at Vadpada, Taluka Uchchal, but since the petitioner was not residing at the said place for about more than 25 years and was residing at Village Tokarwa, Taluka : Uchchal, he requested to the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ukai Yojna Scheme- 2 to allot a plot at Tokarwa in exchange of plot at Vadpada by way of applications dated 30.05.2008 and 10.03.2010 respectively. The said applications were granted by the authority on 03.12/01.2011 and accordingly, name was entered into 7/12 extract. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner offered the said allotted plot to respondent no. 1 for the purpose of godown. After the appointment as distributor of LPG, the petitioner also constructed godown on the said allotted plot which according the petitioner was inspected by various authorities for complying the safety measures. The petitioner thereafter started to store the LPG cylinder in the said godown on the said land. After the construction of said godown the same was also inspected by the Explosive Department (PESO – Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization) and approved it to be capable of storing 5000 Kgs. of LPG. It is submitted that till the impugned suspension order which was issued by Mamlatdar, Uchchal, the said godown was utilized for the purpose of storage of LPG cylinders without any interruption. According to the petitioner storing of such LPG cylinder at the godown was approved by various authorities like Civil Supplies and Explosive Department along with respondent no. 1 and sizable number of customers have been enrolled. The petitioner simultaneously applied for NA permission to the Collector, Tapi and on verification by the Collector, Tapi, it was found that the possession of the plot which is occupied by the petitioner over which the
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
