IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE MAT 109 OF 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 Smt. Nabanita Malakar VS Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.

Before: The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee &

The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury For the Appellant Mr. Debasish Kundu, Sr.Adv., Mr. Nabankur Paul, Adv., Mr. Milindo Paul, Adv.

Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Adv. Ms. Bedashruti Bose, Adv.

Mr. Subham Das, Adv.

Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh, Adv.

For the IOCL Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Supriya Singh, Adv.

CAV on 08.04.2025 Judgment on 25.04.2025 Arijit Banerjee, J. :-

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated November 27, 2024, whereby, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition being WPA 347 of 2023, primarily on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Runu Sarkar carried on business of dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short ‘IOCL’) and, operated a Petrol Pump since 2007 under the name and style of M/s. Khitish Service Center in the PMP (W) category. Runu found it difficult to run the retail outlet. She entered into negotiation with the appellant herein sometime in the year 2020. They submitted a joint application to IOCL for transfer of the dealership in favour of the appellant.

3. Preliminary approval was granted by IOCL and ultimately the appellant was appointed as dealer under a dealership agreement dated November 29, 2021.

4. In June 2021, a Multiple Disciplinary Team, (in short, ‘MDT’) visited the said retail outlet and carried out inspection of the two Dispensing Units (DUs). It was found that the electronic parts of one of the two DUs had been tampered with.

5. By a letter dated July 6, 2021, IOCL called upon the erstwhile dealer, Runu, to submit her explanation. By a letter dated July 12, 2021, Runu contended that there was no anomaly as the Executive Director and Sale Head, West Bengal State Office, Siliguri Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, after calibrating the fuel dispensers had sealed the same and the seal was intact when the certificate of rejection was served on Runu.

6. Not finding Runu’s response to be acceptable, by a letter dated April 18, 2022, the Divisional Retail Sales Head-F, Siliguri Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, called upon the appellant herein to show cause as to why her dealership should not be terminated, on the ground of violation of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2021, and clause 42 of the Dealership Agreement.

7. By a letter dated May 3, 2022, the appellant contended that she was appointed as a dealer only on November 29, 2021, and the outlet was handed over to her on December 1, 2021. The entire incident of alleged tampering with the DU had occurred much prior thereto and during the time when the business was being run by the erstwhile dealer, Runu. The appellant herein had not committed breach of any clause of her dealership agreement. She was not aware of tampering with the DU or any anomaly in the DU.

8. By a notice dated January 24, 2023, IOCL terminated the appellant’s dealership. Challenging such notice, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge by filing the present writ petition.

9. Appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, Mr. Debasish Kundu, learned Senior Advocate, urged the following points before the learned Single Judge as also before us:-

(i) The petitioner’s dealership could not be terminated on the basis of alleged tampering with the DU at a time when the petitioner was not the dealer of IOCL. The charge of manipulation of the DU related to a period during June/July, 2021, much prior to the execution of the dealership agreement dated November 29, 2021, in favour of the writ petitioner. Therefore, issuance of the show cause notice for termination of the petitioner’s dealership and all subsequent steps are illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and in breach of the petitioner’s fundamental righ