IMPORTANT POINT
The court considered the dealership agreement's clause regarding faithful performance and active management, and the policy for reconstitution of retail outlets in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 8th October, 2018 (Annexure P-16), whereby dealership of petrol pump granted in favour of proforma respondent No.6 i.e. wife of petitioner came to be terminated, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following reliefs:-

(i) That the impugned termination letter dated 08.10.2018 contained in Annexure P-15 passed by respondent Corporation may kindly be set aside and quashed.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer the 100% shares of the retail outlet/petrol pump under the name and Style M/s Ganpati H.P. Center in the name of petitioner No.2 by way of reconstitution in accordance with new guidelines dated 21.05.2018 contained in Annexure P-14.

(iii) That the respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to pay mesne profit to the petitioner w.e.f. 08.10.2018 till date @ Rs.35,000/- per month alongwith appropriate interest.

2. Precisely, the relevant facts as emerge from the conjoint reading of the pleadings adduced on record by respective parties reveal that pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent No.2 in the year 2004, proforma respondent No.6 applied for dealership of the petrol pump under the reserved category (SC) at Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. Since proforma respondent No.6 was found eligible, therefore, she came to be issued Letter of Intent (LOI) for proposed retail outlet dealership for selling petroleum products vide communication dated 10.07.2004 (Annexure P-1), whereafter proforma respondent No.6 opened the retail outlet of petroleum product in the name and Style of M/s Ganpati H.P. Center Tarkawari, Tehsil Bhoranj (Hamirpur to Jahu Road), District Hamirpur, H.P. Unfortunately, in the year 2007, proforma respondent No.6 i.e. wife of petitioner No.1 suddenly fell ill and was diagnosed with brain tumour. Since on account of aforesaid disease, proforma respondent No.6 was unable to run the petrol pump as detailed hereinabove, therefore, by way of an application, a joint request came to be made on behalf of petitioner as well as proforma respondent No.6 for transfer of 100% share and dealership in the name of the petitioner, but fact remains that only share to the extent of 49% (Annexure P-7) vide communication dated 01.04.2011, was transferred in favour of the petitioner, whereafter agreement was executed inter se petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. On 24.10.2013, petitioner No.1 again sent a letter to respondent-Corporation for transferring 100% share of the retail-outlet/Petrol Pump Style M/s Ganpati H.P. Center, but in vain. Subsequently again on 9th January, 2015, petitioner No.1 addressed a letter to respondent-Corporation stating therein that as per the Revised Policy Guidelines, proforma respondent No.6 may be permitted to resign from the dealership and 100% share may be transferred in the name of petitioner No.1, however, such prayer of him remained pending consideration for long and vide show cause notice on 04.01.2018, respondent-Corporation called upon petitioner as to explain that why dealership granted in favour of proforma respondent No.6 be not cancelled on account of concealment of fact. In the aforesaid show cause notice, respondent-Corporation alleged that the factum with regard to appointment of proforma respondent No.6 on contract in the year 2009 was concealed. Though proforma respondent No.6 filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, wherein she admitted factum with regard to her appointment on contact with the Government Department in the year 2009, but stated that since she was suffering with the brain tumor and affairs of dealership was being looked after by his husband-petitioner, she was unable to communicate aforesaid factum. However, vide communication dated 08.10.2018, agreement dated 01.04.2011 executed inter se proforma respondent No.6 and respondent No.2, whereby dealership of t