A party not privy to a contract lacks standing to challenge its termination, and violations of dealership agreement terms justify termination.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

IA No.2/2018

1. This is an application by one S. Manjit Singh S/o S. Swaran Singh R/o Ward No.6 Jourian District Jammu for arraying him as party respondent or party intervener.

2. Mr. K.S.Johal, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that because of the reason that the applicant has vital interest in the outcome of the appeal arising out of an order passed in OWP No.82/2016, the applicant is entitled to hearing in the matter. He submits that he was permitted to appear and argue the matter as intervener by the Writ Court, as is apparent from an interim order dated 22nd March, 2017 passed in OWP No.82/2016. It is the further plea of the applicant that after termination of the dealership agreement entered into by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited with the wife of the appellant, the applicant was appointed as dealer to run the petrol pump by the name of M/s Gupta Filling Station, Sungal Morh, Akhnoor.

3. The application is opposed by the appellant. It is submitted that the dispute raised in the appeal as also the dispute which has been adjudicated by the Writ Court is between the appellant and the HPCL with which the applicant has no concern. It is, thus, submitted that the applicant, who is stranger to the lis, is not entitled to be arrayed a party respondent or party intervener.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant, who was permitted to intervene before the Writ Court is also entitled to be heard in the appeal as intervener. It is not in dispute that after the petrol outlet dealership in favour of the wife of the appellant was cancelled, the applicant was appointed as new dealer of M/s Gupta Filling Station and, therefore, has vital interest in the lis.

5. The application, for the aforesaid reasons, is allowed. The applicant namely, S. Manjit Singh is allowed to address as intervener.

LPA No33/2018

6. This intra Court appeal by one Mukesh Gupta Son of Sh.K.B.Gupta filed in the name of M/s Gupta Filling Station is directed against an order and judgment dated 14.03.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in OWP No.82/2016 titled M/s Gupta Filling Station v. Union of India and others, whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the notice dated 14.01.2016 issued to one Ms. Shakun Mahajan Proprietor M/s Gupta Filling Station, HPCL Retail outlet, Sungal Morh, Akhnoor by the Chief Regional Manager, HPCL.

7. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge a brief look at the relevant facts is necessary.

7.1. Ms. Shakun Mahajan, Proprietor M/s Gupta Filling Station was appointed as dealer for the retail sale of petroleum products on the terms and conditions fully enumerated in the Memorandum of Agreement executed between HPCL and Ms. Shakun Mahajan on 30th day of June, 2006. It is claimed that said Shakun Mahajan moved an application on 18th January, 2012 before respondent No.2 for seeking permission of the later to enter into partnership with her husband Mr. Mukesh Gupta. The HPCL accepted the proposal and conveyed its no objection to the reconstitution of the proprietorship concern into partnership firm. It is averred that, thereafter, certain disputes erupted between HPCL and said Ms. Shakun Mahajan, the dealer, which, in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the Memorandum of Agreement, were referred to sole arbitrator Sh. Dev Raj Sharma for adjudication.

7.2 The arbitrator passed an award on 28th March, 2015 and upheld the claim of Ms.Shakun Mahajan to the extent of claim No.2 i.e. for reconstitution of the proprietorship by inducting her husband as one of the partners. It needs to be taken note of that before the proceedings were initiated before the learned arbitrator, the HPCL had already put the dealer Shakun Mahajan on notice to show cause as to why her dealership be not cancelled for violating the terms and