JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Deepak Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the complainant and Shri Rakesh Kumar & Sri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. Present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 12.03.2022, whereby the dealership of the petitioner was terminated by the Divisional Retail Head, Noida Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), U.P. State Office-II, E-8, Sector-1, Noida.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :

4. A Petrol-Pump was allotted through Letter of Intent (for short “LOI”) to one Shri Umesh Chand Sharma (father of the petitioner) (for short “original allottee”) on 22.08.2005, followed by an execution of the Memorandum of Agreement on 04.08.2008. At the time of allotment, the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short “IOCL”) had a condition in the agreement that the allottee should not be holding the Office of Profit or if he is in any job, he has to submit his resignation or voluntary retirement. The petitioner, who is son of original allottee, claimed that his father was holding a post of Lecturer in a Private aided College namely

“Lakshman Prasad Anglo Vaidic Inter College, Anoopshahar, Bulandashar” and on 01.10.2005, the original allottee had submitted his application for voluntary retirement, which was duly accepted by the Management of the College on 10.10.2005 and was forwarded to District Inspector of Schools (for short “DIOS”) for approval. The DIOS had rejected the said application on 29.03.2006. It is also claimed that the original allottee had intimated the whole state of affairs to the General Manager of IOCL and even it was brought to the notice of the IOCL that he had rejoined the post of Lecturer on 30.03.2006, which was duly received and acknowledged by the General Manager of IOCL on 23.05.2006. Later on, the original allottee superannuated on 30.06.2009. The IOCL had also sent a letter to the Principal of the College for confirmation of the information, therefore, it is claimed that the IOCL was in full knowledge of the above facts. Right from the start of the petrol-pump i.e. in the year 2005 till 2013, the petrol-pump was running smoothly to the satisfaction of IOCL.

5. It transpires from the record that the brother of the original allottee namely Shri Naresh Chandra Sharma, who is real uncle of the petitioner, made a complaint to the IOCL on 29.09.2014 alleging therein that the land on which, the petrol-pump is situated is an ancestral land and there is no partition and forged NOC was submitted by the original allottee for getting NOC from the IOCL. In the said complaint, it was also alleged that since the original allottee was in service and hence, the petrol pump could not have been allotted to the petitioner’s father. In response to the said complaint, the IOCL had issued a show cause notice to the original allottee, which was duly responded by him. It also transpires from the record that in the interregnum, some settlement arrived between the brothers. It is also claimed that in lieu of settlement, the petitioner had paid Rs. 17/-lakhs to the complainant and accordingly, the complaint was withdrawn. Once the complaint was withdrawn, the IOCL closed the complaint and informed the complainant about the same on 14.11.2014.

6. Even after amicable settlement of the dispute between the brothers, the complainant kept on writing complaints to IOCL against the original allottee, on which, the IOCL had conducted inquiries at regular intervals and found nothing adverse against the original allottee. As per the petitioner, these complaints were made only to harass the original allottee and to extract some money.

7. In the meanwhile, the dealership of petrol-pump was reconstitute