Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Telu Ram Hans Raj Thapar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. - Respondents
CR No. 2248 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-09-2019
Ramnish Puri, Advocate, for the Appellant; Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that the plaintiffs' claim of permanent dealership was not supported by evidence, and the court upheld the validity of the government policy on ad hoc dealership.
Headnote:
Ad Hoc Dealership - Dispute over Land Allotment - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Section 151 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming to be permanent dealers of the defendants. The dispute arose over the allotment of land for running a fuel filling station, leading to disruptions in supply and termination of dealership.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were operating under an ad hoc dealership arrangement, and the Delhi High Court had already dismissed their challenge to the government policy on ad hoc dealership. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had no prima facie case, no balance of convenience, and no irreparable loss in the event of non-grant of temporary injunction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the dealership, the validity of the government policy on ad hoc dealership, and the rights of the parties over the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Delhi High Court judgment, the government policy on ad hoc dealership, and the lack of evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim of permanent dealership.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, finding it devoid of merits.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, vide which application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed, order dated 15.05.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Moga, vide which appeal was partly accepted but relief regarding remaining part of the application was declined and order dated 01.03.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, whereby application under Section 151 CPC for preservation of the suit property till decision of the suit was dismissed.
2. Earlier CR No. 1828 of 2019 was filed which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.03.2019 with a liberty to file fresh revision petition. Order dated 01.03.2019 could not be assailed in the said revision petition, vide which application under Section 151 CPC was dismissed.
3. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that plaintiff Firm is an authorized dealer of defendants. Plaintiffs were allotted a retail outlet at railway road, Moga on the site mark by letters ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint. The said land is owned by Municipal Corporation, Moga. The land shown by letters AEFD with blue colour is in possession of the plaintiffs prior to the year 1929. Remaining land as shown in green colour with letters EFCB was leased out by the Municipal Corporation, Moga to the defendants for running fuel filling station. Due to insufficiency of land for running a fuel filling station, plaintiff No. 1 agreed to pool his land in blue colour with the land taken on lease by the defendants for running a fuel filling station. Plaintiffs further alleged that it was agreed between the parties that the dealership of defendants for running the petrol pump will remain with plaintiff No. 1 throughout and defendants had obtained NOC and explosive licence No. PB-1239 from the competent authority for running a fuel filling station over the land in question for MS, HSD and lubricants. Plaintiffs further pleaded that in the year 1995, defendants took an industrial approval for resitement of its outlets in full or in part. The outlet of the plaintiff was approved for partial resitement. As a result of that, plaintiffs were allowed to sell Ms. and lubricants at the site of railway road, Moga and HSD with lubricants at the site situated at village Bughipura, NH-95, G.T. Road, Moga by way of partial resitement. Defendants had purchased a new site at village Bughipura and also obtained NOC and explosive licence No. PB-2134 to sell HSD with lubricants. On licence No. PB-1239, HSD was deleted. In this manner, plaintiffs started running two fuel filling stations. In the year 2003, defendants added two products to the existing products at both the sites. HSD was added at railway road, Moga and Ms. was added at village Bughipura. In this manner, both the sites started selling MS, HSD and lubricants w.e.f. the year 2003.
4. Some dispute arose regarding land in green colour with the Municipal Corporation, Moga. The supply remained suspended and the plaintiffs had to file civil suit for permanent injunction against Municipal Corporation, Moga. Injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs by Additional District Judge, Moga. The supply remained disrupted for a considerable period. Ultimately, the supply was restored by the defendants. Plaintiff Firm received a letter dated 19.09.2013 from the defendants, wherein it was mentioned that plaintiff Firm is ad hoc dealer and its dealership was terminated vide letter dated 03.07.2013. Plaintiffs further pleaded that explosive licence No. PB-1239 was not surrendered by the defendants at the time of full resitement to the new site at village Bughipura. They did not obtain any fresh licence regarding full resitement at village Bughipura and kept on selling HSD without validation at railway road, Moga from 2003 onwards. Plaintiffs claimed themselves to be permanent dealer of the defend
