Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Sri Bhagwan Singh, son of Sri Kedar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No.255 of 2019
Decided on : 17-10-2023
Appointment - Dealership Dispute - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - [Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971] - The court discussed the appointment of a dealer for a petrol pump, the termination of the previous contractor's appointment, and the application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The court analyzed the policy decision dated 21.12.2006 and its application in the case, concluding that the decision to appoint the respondent as the dealer was in line with the policy decision and did not suffer from error.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a dealer for a petrol pump, the termination of the previous contractor's appointment, and the application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioner/appellant was appointed as the Managing and Handling Contractor of the petrol pump, but the appointment was terminated, leading to a series of legal actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the respondent as the dealer was in line with the policy decision dated 21.12.2006 and did not suffer from error. The court also held that the termination of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation was valid and not subject to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the appointment of the respondent as the dealer, the termination of the petitioner's contract, and the application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the policy decision dated 21.12.2006 and its application in the case. The court concluded that the appointment of the respondent as the dealer was in line with the policy decision and did not suffer from error. Additionally, the court held that the termination of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation was valid and not subject to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appointment of the respondent as the dealer and the validity of the termination of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2183 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the order dated 29.06.2009 issued by the Chief Division retail Sales Manager, Ranchi Division, Divisional Office of Indian Oil Corporation by which the respondent No.6 has been appointed as the retail dealer of COCO Petrol Pump at Adityapur has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-
The case of the writ petitioner is that one Nikhil Kumar Singh was appointed as Managing and Handling contractor of Petrol Pump owned by M/s IBP in terms of the advertisement issued sometime in the year 1999-2000. The writ petitioner was appointed as nominee and was running the petrol pump. The writ petitioner, subsequently, was appointed on 24.05.2006 as Managing and Handling Contractor of said Petrol Pump owned by M/s IBP Company Ltd.
3. The petitioner/ appellant continued operating the said Petrol Pump as the Managing and Handling Contractor, when, all of a sudden, he received a Notice of Caveat filed on behalf of M/S IBP Company Limited from which he came to know that the respondents have decided to terminate his appointment as the Managing and Handling Contractor.
4. Thereafter the petitioner/ appellant immediately moved before this Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 5930 of 2007 for a direction upon the respondents to immediately renew/ award Dealership to him for running the Petrol Pump outlet at Adityapur.
5. However, during the pendency of W.P. (C) No. 5930 of 2007, the respondents by exercising power under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 dispossessed the petitioner on 08.12.2011.
6. The petitioner/ appellant came to learn that while the Petrol Pump was in his possession and the matter was subjudice before this Hon'ble High Court, the respondents vide letter contained in Ref. No.RDO/RO/COCO/Adityapur dated 29.06.2009 appointed one Shri Rakesh Kumar Paswan (respondent no. 6) as the dealer of the said Petrol Pump and he was put in possession on 13.12.2011.
7. The petitioner/ appellant challenged the letter dated 29.06.2009 by which Shri Rakesh Kumar Paswan was appointed as Dealer of the said Petrol Pump by filing an amendment application in W.P. (C) No. 5930 of 2007. In view of the subsequent developments W.P. (C) No. 5930 of 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 3.01.2013 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ application challenging the appointment of Shri Rakesh Kumar Paswan as a dealer of the said Petrol Pump.
8. Thereafter, the writ petitioner – appellant filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2183 of 2013 challenging the letter dated 29.06.2009 wherein the respondents filed counter affidavit stating that after completion of all the formalities, the respondents have followed Clause 3 (a) of the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India.
9. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 11.12.2018 against which the present appeal has been preferred.
10. It appears from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove based upon the pleading that one Nikhil Kumar Singh was appointed as Managing and Handling contractor of Petrol Pump owned by M/s IBP in terms of the advertisement issued sometime in the year 1999-2000. The writ petitioner was appointed as nominee and was running the petrol pump. The writ petitioner, subsequently, was appointed on 24.05.2006 as Managing and Handling Contractor of said Petrol Pump owned by M/s IBP Company Ltd. The Company had issued a notice upon the writ petitioner in connection with the case which was said likely to be filed by the petitioner. Subsequent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the policy decision dated 21.12.2006 in the appointment of a dealer for the petrol pump. The court's decision emphasized the val....
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....
The cancellation of a dealership agreement independently terminates the lease, affirming eviction rights under the Public Premises Act.
OMCs were directed to ensure fair selection and transparency in process of appointment of Service Providers for COCO Retail Outlets.
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 affirmed that eligibility for retail dealership under the guidelines excludes candidates with ongoing legislative roles, emphasizing public interest and operational integrity.
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
