Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Varinder Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another – Respondents
CWP No.6201 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-04-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate
Consent from legal heirs is essential for reconstitution of a dealership in case of the death of the sole dealer, as per the Guidelines.
Headnote:
Reconstitution - Dealership - Income Tax Act, 1961, Section-56(2)(v); Standard Dealership Agreement, Clauses 35 and 46(i); Guidelines for Reconstitution of RO/SKOLDO Dealerships - [2.3(i), 2.4, 35, 46(i), 3.4, Explanation] - The court discussed the reconstitution proposal submitted by the petitioner in terms of the Additional Guidelines for reconstitution of RO/SKOLDO Dealerships dated 21.05.2013 and the specific conditions applicable to the scenario, recognizing the current setup, satisfactory performance, and indemnity bond. The court also referred to the Standard Dealership Agreement and the Guidelines for reconstitution of dealerships, emphasizing the need for consent from legal heirs in case of the death of the sole dealer and the restrictions on transferring dealership interests.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reconstitution of a dealership after the death of the original dealer. The Corporation rejected the proposal, citing the absence of documents from legal heirs and the need for their consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of consent from the legal heirs of the deceased dealer, as required by the Guidelines. The court dismissed the petition without costs.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioner for reconstitution of the dealership without consent from the legal heirs of the deceased dealer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as per the Guidelines, in the absence of legal heirs' consent, the dealership reconstitution could not be granted to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the letter dated 08.01.2015 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”), by which reconstitution proposal submitted by the petitioner has been returned on the ground that it cannot be processed and he has also made a prayer for directing the respondents to accept the reconstitution proposal in terms of the Additional Guidelines for reconstitution of RO/SKOLDO Dealerships dated 21.05.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”).
2. In brief, the Corporation allotted the dealership for its retail outlet (installing HSD Pump) at village Kala Sanghian, District Kapurthala to Suresh Kumar S/o Baldev Krishan on 19.01.1979. The said Suresh Kumar operated the dealership in the name and style of M/s Vijay Service Centre. It is alleged that Suresh Kumar entered into a partnership deed on 15.09.1979 with his father Baldev Krishan and brother (petitioner herein) Varinder Kumar, in which they were partners in equal shares. It is further alleged that both Suresh Kumar and Baldev Krishan had passed away on 06.09.1993 and 17.06.1997 respectively and the petitioner has been running the dealership as a sole proprietor. It is also alleged that the partnership deed dated 15.09.1979 was never submitted to the Corporation but according to the petitioner, the Corporation knew it very well that the affairs of the retail outlet are being managed by the petitioner from the last many years. It is further averred that the family of Suresh Kumar, comprising of his widow and five children, had migrated to USA after his death and are now the US citizens. It is further averred that the petitioner had been operating the retail outlet without any interference from the year 1997 till February 2013 but on 05.02.2013, he received a letter from the Corporation, asking him to submit the documents mentioned in the said letter. Although it is averred that the petitioner had submitted the documents available with him but on 07.06.2013, he again received another letter from the Corporation by which he was informed that he had been operating the dealership since long against the extant guidelines of the Corporation and was asked to appear in person on the date, time and place mentioned in the letter.
3. The petitioner received another letter dated 30.09.2013 by which the Corporation had asked the petitioner to submit the reconstitution proposal in terms of the policy of the Corporation so that it may be processed and fresh dealership proposal may be issued, if required.
4. In response, it is alleged that the petitioner sent a letter to the SDRSM (RS), Jalandhar DO for transferring the outlet in his name alleging that after the death of Suresh Kumar, he has been managing the affairs of the outlet as a Manager and in the same letter, he has averred that the outlet is being run by him as a sole proprietor for the last more than 12 years and enclosed an application with a request for transfer of the same in his name. The petitioner received communications from the Corporation continuously vide letters dated 16.10.2013, 30.10.2013 and 31.01.2014 by which he was informed that he had not submitted the requisite documents in relation of reconstitution proposal as per the policy of the Corporation. Ultimately, the Corporation, vide its letter dated 08.01.2015, informed the petitioner that it had received a letter from the Law Office of Mohammad Ali from US dated 06.08.2013, in which he has mentioned that Mrs. Mohinder Kumar, the surviving spouse of Suresh Kumar (original allottee) and their five children have desired that the dealership and ownership of the premises be transferred in their names or in the name of a trust established under the name of Suresh Kumar and had asked as to how the dealership may be transferred in the name of the wife and children of Suresh Kumar or a trust established by them. In the impugned letter dated 08.01.2015, the Corporation
