The main legal point established in the judgment is that the closure of the retail outlet with the motive to sell products at a higher price and the bouncing of cheques constituted a violation of the dealership agreement, leading to its termination.

Judgment

Dr. A. K. Rath, J.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged, inter alia, the order dated 7.6.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mumbai, vide Annexure-5. By the said order, the appellate authority confirmed the order dated 27.10.2008 passed by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.3, vide Annexure-2 whereby and whereunder the dealership agreement dated 12.5.1982 of the petitioner no.1 was terminated.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners is that pursuant to dealership agreement dated 14.5.1982, petitioner no.1 was appointed as dealer by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the IOCL”) for sale of petroleum products at the retail outlet owned by IOCL in the name and style of M/s.Saila Service Station at Raj Bhawan Square, Bhubaneswar. He wanted to establish another retail outlet at Tamando and sent a letter to the IOCL on 2.9.1991. The IOCL asked the Chief Engineer, National Highway Authority to approve the site plan. The National Highway Authority issued license to him on 4.6.1992 to use the national highway to approach the outlet. Thus he maintained two outlets at two different locations. On 8.1.2007 opposite parties restrained him from selling branded products of Indian Oil. He filed a writ application, being WP(C) No.2005 of 2007, before this Court assailing the action of the opposite parties. The same was allowed on 8.3.2007. On 4.6.2008, the Union Government suddenly hiked the price of petrol and diesel. Due to hike of price of petrol and diesel, the people in large numbers flocked at the retail outlets, created disturbances and damaged the outlet. The staffs of the petitioners were also assaulted by some anti-socials. The seals of the meter were damaged by miscreants. The situation became uncontrollable. At 4.30 P.M, the staffs left the place, since they could not control the situation. The Capital Police Station was informed over telephone. Accordingly, a PCR van came and controlled the situation. At the time of inspection, he was not present at the outlet, but on being informed, he immediately sent a written report to the Capital Police Station on 4.6.2008. At 8.30 P.M on the same day, the officials of the opposite parties came, inspected the outlet and prepared a report at 9.50 P.M. They directed closure of the outlet and handed over the report on the spot. On 5.6.2008, the Manager of the outlet went to the Capital Police Station and lodged an FIR. A case was registered under Sections 354/323/427/34 IPC. On 4.6.2008, the officials of the IOCL after closing the outlet came for inspection on 5.6.2008. They did not inform him at the time of inspection, whereafter he filed writ petition, being WP(C) No.8300 of 2008, challenging the action of the opposite parties in closing the outlet. While the matter stood thus, the IOCL issued a show cause notice on 20.6.2008 directing him to suspend the sales at Tamando Service Station immediately on the ground that tamper (broken) W&M seals of the dispensing unit, intentional/deliberate closure of the outlet on 4.6.2008 and stoppage of sales of petroleum products to the general public and that three cheques issued by him to the IOCL were bounced by the Bank for insufficient funds. He filed his show cause reply on 2.7.2008. Challenging the said notice, he filed WP(C) No.8950 of 2008. By a common order dated 8.9.2008, the writ petitions being WP(C) Nos.8950 and 8300 of 2008 were disposed of. This Court refrained from interfering with the matter, since the matter was under consideration before the IOCL. However, the writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions;

“At this stage, since the matter is under consideration before the opposite parties, we refrain ourselves from interfering with the matter. However, we dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:

(i) The final decision shall