BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
M/s. Mugavai Indane Gas Agency, Ramanathapuram - Appellant
Versus
The General Manager (LPG-s), Madurai - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 9838, 7562, 8214 & 11062 of 2021
Decided On : 03-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Nature of business of partnership firm was to issue new domestic LPG connections and generally do all other related activities with respect to providing LPG connections to various customers and also to maintain show room and godown with all safety norms in place - Perusal of partnership deed also shows that disputes should be referred to arbitration - Counter had been filed on behalf of respondent questioning their description in cause title - It was stated that sole proprietor of petitioner, other person was declared as a successful candidate for LPG distributorship - Respondent had received complaints claiming that petitioner had constructed show room for distributorship in a land not owned by him - Whether this Court can interfere with a show cause notice issued to petitioner – Held, having entered into a contractual relationship with respondent, an obligation is placed on petitioner to answer any queries raised by respondent - It must be kept in mind that respondent is not a third party stranger, but has a direct existing juridical relationship with petitioner and has every right to question petitioner, if respondent is of opinion that petitioner has violated terms of agreement - This is an issue entirely between petitioner and respondent and this Court can never enter into a discussion of same - It would be extremely inappropriate on part of this Court to interfere when anyone of two parties have a right to question any act of other contracting parties - Right to seek explanation is inbuilt in very fact that agreement had been entered into with consensus ad idem - When an agreement is entered into agreeing to do a particular act in a particular manner, and if it is suggested that there is act performed in any other manner, then one of contracting parties, has every right to question other and put other on notice about violation and seek for explanation - This is a right inbuilt in terms of agreement directly and implicitly - In show cause notice, it is mentioned that 15 days time is granted to petitioner - Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order, passed by the respondent vide his proceedings in Ref.TNSO/LPG/MDU AO/MUGAVAI, dated 26.05.2021 and quash the same as illegal.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with the impugned order, which actually is a show cause notice issued by the respondent/General Manager (LPGs), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Madurai, dated 26.05.2021 to the petitioner/Mugavai Indane Gas Agency, represented by its Proprietor, K.Gurumoorthy Kamaraj, Ramanathapuram District and to quash the same.
2. The sole proprietor/petitioner gas agency had been declared and selected for LPG distributorship at Ramanathapuram District by the respondent by order, dated 08.08.2016. As part of distributorship, it was necessary that the petitioner had lands for construction of godown for storing the LPG cylinders and independently, further lands for construction of a show room, where the gas cylinders can be actually exhibited and sold to customers. The petitioner did not have either of the two lands.
3. In the affidavit, the petitioner had stated that he had entered into lease deeds, dated 12.08.2016 and 17.08.2016 with his relatives Mr.Muniyandi and Mrs.Subbulakshmi, respectively with respect to their lands to be utilised for the aforesaid purposes. The lease deeds were also registered in the office of the Joint Registrar, Ramanathapuram. He was permitted to put up a construction in the aforesaid lands. He had also obtained financial assistance from other relatives with condition that he would repay the monies borrowed in instalments.
4. The petitioner claimed in his affidavit that he was therefore compelled to affix his signatures in blank papers. It is claimed that on the basis of such signed blank papers, two of his relatives, G.Praveenkumar son of Ganesh and Mrs.C.Vanithamani wife of Chidambaram, had prepared a partnership deed, in which, the petitioner was shown as first party/Managing Director and the other two were shown as second and third parties and that they had commenced the partnership firm calling “Mugavai Indane Gas Agency”. The nature of the business of the partnership firm was to issue new domestic LPG connections and generally do all other related activities with respect to providing LPG connections to various customers and also to maintain show room and godown with all safety norms in the place. A perusal of the partnership deed also shows that disputes should be referred to arbitration.
5. The petitioner claiming that the said partnership deed was the result of fraud being committed owing to his signatures in blank papers being utilised unauthorisedly, had filed O.S.No.81 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram District, seeking a declaration that the said partnership deed, which is incidentally unregistered and dated 22.05.2019, as null and void. The relief was sought against the parties to the partnership deed. A further relief was also sought against the other two individuals, namely, M.Muniyandi and G.Subbulakshmi, with whom he had entered into lease deeds, seeking to restrain them from interfering with his possession of the properties, which had been leased out to him, except by due process of law and a further permanent injunction was also sought against the signatories in the partnership deed, restraining them from interfering with the business, “Mugavai Indane Gas Agency”. The said suit is pending.
6. The petitioner, to continue with his licence with the respondent, had submitted an application on 02.12.2020 to shift the show room to some other place. He also sought to shift the godown to another place and had submitted an application in this regard on 30.03.2021. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.7785 of 2021 seeking a direction to dispose of the aforesaid two applications. In the Writ Petition
Siemens Limited vs. State of Maharastra and others
State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943
Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826
Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2006) 12 Scale 262
K.I. Shephard v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686
State of Orissa and others vs. Mesco Steels Limited and another
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.