Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWAL, DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
Sri Hari Indane Gramin Viterak Thru. Alok Dwivedi & Others - Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. Thru. Secy, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas & Ors - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. 10235, 10240 of 2020
Decided On : 08-07-2020
Constitution of India – Articles 226, 19, 227 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 12(5) – Release of Equipment's deposit – Quashment of order – Writ Petition, petitioners, who are authorized rural distributors of LPG of Indian Oil Corporation, have filed instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for quashment of order and notices whereby it was directed to recover equipment's, deposit towards cost of hotplate, Rubber tube, Installation charges, DGCC book cost and other subsidy inter-alia on ground that the same is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and further guidelines issued by IOC have not been followed – Held, Petitioners have to take recourse as per provisions of clause-37 of agreement and a writ under Article 226 of Constitution is not remedy – It may be clarified that all petitioners except petitioner no. 3 and petitioner no.4 of Writ Petition had entered into an agreement with Indian Oil Corporation much prior to amendment in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petitioners have rushed directly to this Court and have bypassed alternative remedy of invoking Arbitration Clause-37 of agreement executed between parties – Court, without entering into merits of the case are inclined to dismiss writ petitions on ground of availability of alternative remedy – Writ Petitions Dismissed (Paras 26, 27, 28, 30)
Facts of The case:
Case are that petitioner no.1 of writ petition no. 10235 (MB) of 2020 was appointed as authorized distributor of LPG Gas Agency in the name and style of M/s Hari Indance Gramin Vitrak at location Girsi, Tehsil & District Kanpur Nagar on 16.10.2013. Similarly, other petitioners, namely, petitioner no.2 to 6 of the aforesaid writ petitions were also appointed authorized distributors of LPG Gas Agency for different locations in between 2005 to 2016 after signing of the agreement between the petitioners and the Indian Oil Corporation.
Findings of the court:
Petitioners have to take recourse as per provisions of clause-37 of agreement and a writ under Article 226 of Constitution is not remedy – It may be clarified that all petitioners except petitioner no. 3 and petitioner no.4 of Writ Petition had entered into an agreement with Indian Oil Corporation much prior to amendment in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petitioners have rushed directly to this Court and have bypassed alternative remedy of invoking Arbitration Clause-37 of agreement executed between parties – Court, without entering into merits of the case are inclined to dismiss writ petitions on ground of availability of alternative remedy.
Result: Writ Petitions Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ratnesh Jauhari and Sri Manish Jauhari, Advocates appearing for the respondent-Corporation and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent no.1.
2. As common question of law and fact is involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, both the writ petitions have been clubbed together and are being decided by a common judgment.
3. In Writ Petition No. 10235 (MB) of 2020; Sri Hari Indane Gramin Vitrak and others versus Union of India and others, petitioners, who are the authorized rural distributors of the LPG of the Indian Oil Corporation, have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashment of the order dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure-1) and the notices dated 17.6.2020 whereby it was directed to recover the equipment's, deposit Rs. 13,63,428 towards cost of hotplate, Rubber tube, Installation charges, DGCC book cost and other subsidy inter-alia on the ground that the same is in violation of the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and further the guidelines issued by the IOC have not been followed.
4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no.1 of writ petition no. 10235 (MB) of 2020 was appointed as authorized distributor of LPG Gas Agency in the name and style of M/s Hari Indance Gramin Vitrak at location Girsi, Tehsil & District Kanpur Nagar on 16.10.2013. Similarly, other petitioners, namely, petitioner no.2 to 6 of the aforesaid writ petitions were also appointed authorized distributors of LPG Gas Agency for different locations in between 2005 to 2016 after signing of the agreement between the petitioners and the Indian Oil Corporation.
5. Similarly, Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 10240(MB) of 2020; M/s Gaurav Indane Gramin Vitrak and another versus Union of India and others have challenged the notices dated 17.6.2020 and sought for a direction to the opposite parties not to proceed and implement the impugned notices dated 17.6.2020. M/s Gaurav Indane Gramin Viterak (petitioner no.1) of said Writ Petition No. 10240 (MB) of 2020 was appointed as distributor of LPG Gas Agency for location Kuthond, district Jalaun on 12.7.2014 whereas M/s Mihauliya Indane Gram Vitrak was appointed as distributor of LPG Gas Agency on 31.3.2012 after execution of the agreements with the Indian Oil Corporation.
6. As per the Scheme & FAQ's, LPG connection was required to be released to only one adult female member of the family as per SECC2011. For connections under the scheme, applications were required to be submitted by the applicants to the distributor. After receiving the same, distributor was required to physically verify the house of the applicant for not having any LPG connection by the applicant or her family members as per SECC-2011. After being satisfied that no other connection is available in the name of the applicant or her family members, the distributor was required to upload the Aadhar of all adult family members and in case of non-availability of the Aadhar of any member an undertaking was required to be taken by the distributor from the applicant. After the KYC ( Know Your Customer) is uploaded the de-duplication was required to be carried out by Indian Oil Corporation.
7. It came to the knowledge of the Corporation that multiple connections have been released by the petitioners without following the due procedure. Further, it was noticed that in the SECC-2011, no names were given and the petitioners have neither uploaded the details of Aadhar nor complete information were given while uploading the data. As per FAQ-9, the distributors were required to physically verify the house of the applicant for not having LPG connection before uploading the applicants detail on IOC portal, which the petitioners have not done. Therefore, a letter dated 29.1.2020 was issued by the Corporation to which reply was submitted by the petitioners.
8. Under the Ujjwala Scheme, LPG distributors have to f
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
