Honble SAXENA, J.—The petitioner firm through this writ petition has challenged the validity and legality of order dated 29.2.1992 (Annex. 6), whereby the District Collector (Supply), Pali suspended its licence under Clause 11 of the Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing and Control) Order, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Order, 1990) for a period of 30 days as well as the order dated 31-3-1992 (Annex. 14) passed by the District Supply Officer, Pali (respondent No. 6) cancelling its licence No. 32/91 under Clause 11 of the Order, 1990 and has prayed that the said orders be declared illegal and void and be quashed.

(2). The petitioner is a proprietory firm and Shanker Dan is its proprietor. Shankerdan was appointed as a dealer for the retail out let of Petroleum Products at Ramasia, Pali by the Indian Oil Corporation (respondent No. 4) in the year 1976. However, for the reasons and circumstances best known to the respondent No. 4, neither any formal letter of appointment was issued nor the dealership agreement was executed. On the other hand, a letter dated 27.05.1976 (Annex. 1) was received from the District Manager of respondent No. 4 wherein it was intimated that it was proposed to award the retail out let dealership in the names of Sarva Shri Shankar Dan Charan and Sidharth Charan (respondent No. 5). It is the case of the petitioner that since Shri Shankar Dan Charan had made the application for appointment as a dealer in his own name and not with respondent No.5, he made an objection to respondent No. 4; that thereupon Shankar Dans objection was accepted and respondent No. 4 rectified its error and issued letter dated 28-9-1976 (Annex. 2) to the Collector and District Magistrate, Pali informing that Shri Shankar Dan Charan was appointed as a dealer for the proposed diesel filling station at Sumerpur-Pali road near Kilometer stone 9 at Ramasia and requested that a no objection certificate and approval of the site plan be sent. Thereafter, a no objection certificate was issued in favour of Shankar Dan who started his business. It is alleged that Shankar Dan purchased the agricultural land, got its conversion for the installation of the diesel pump and the lease-deed of the land was also issued in his favour. Shankar Dan further got installed the electricity and water connections as well as the telephone and petitioners business was going on smoothly.

(3). But to its utter surprise, respondent No. 4 issued a notice dated 26-3-1990 (Annex. 3) alleging that the retail out let dealership at Ramasia was awarded jointly in the name of Shri Shankar Dan Charan and Sidharth Charan in terms of their appointment letter dated 11-5-1976 (Annex. R.4/2); that it had come to their knowledge that without their prior written permission, the petitioner had effected several changes in the constitution of the firm immediately after the appointment letter and thereafter and had contravened clause 6 (a) and (b) of the said appointment letter. Respondent No. 4, therefore, asked the petitioner to show cause within 30 days as to why action terminating its dealership should not be taken. The petitioner submitted its reply dated 26-4-1990 (Annex. 4) refuting these allegations and asserted that no letter of appointment as dealer jointly with Sidharth Charan was ever received by it nor any dealership agreement was entered into regarding the said retail out let. It was further asserted that Shri Sidharth Charan (respondent No. 5) was never appointed as a dealer jointly with Shri Shankar Dan Charan. Thereafter, on 28-4-1990, the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Pali against respondent No. 4 for the relief of perpetual injunction challenging the notice Annexure-3. The petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rr. 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 26-4-1990 directed the respondent No. 4 to maintain status quo. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document