102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3125-2025 (O/M)

Date of decision : 04.02.2025 Paramjeet Kaur ...... Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Ms. Anamika Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, AAG Haryana.

-.- -.-

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for quashing letter/order dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure P-17), issued by respondent No. 2 (Divisional Retail Head, Panipat Divisional Office), whereby it has been decided to keep in abeyance action regarding cancellation of the dealership of respondent No. 3, as per terms of Clause No. 35 of the Dealership Agreement dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P-7).

2. Briefly, respondent No. 3-M/s Khushal Fuels, Kaithal (in short 'respondent No. 3-Dealer) is running a petrol pump. M/s Khushal Fuels, Kaithal, is stated to be owned by one Sh. Om Parkash.

2.1 Petitioner states that an agreement dated 11.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) was executed between aforesaid Om Parkash and present petitioner (Paramjeet Kaur), whereby the aforesaid petrol pump was given on lease to the petitioner for a period of two years i.e. from 01.04.2021 upto 01.04.2023 and the same was further extended by one year, vide agreement dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure P-2).

2.2 It is alleged that respondent No. 3-Dealer through his muscle power interfered into the possession of the petitioner and did not allow the petitioner to work in the petrol pump after 02.08.2023 and in the said circumstances, petitioner preferred a Civil Suit No. 449 of 2023 (Annexure P-5) on 10.08.2023. It is stated that in the aforesaid suit, respondent No. 1-Indian Oil Corporation (in short 'respondent No. 1- Corporation) submitted its written statement, wherein it was, inter alia, pleaded that in terms of Clause No. 35 of agreement dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P-7), executed between respondent No. 1-Corporation and respondent No. 3-Dealer, the respondent No. 3-Dealer had no right to grant lease/sub dealership in favour of the petitioner. Clause No. 35 of agreement dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P-7) reads as under :- “35. The dealer shall not sell, assign, sublet, mortgage, charge or part with or otherwise transfer his interest in the Dealership or any right or interest or benefit conferred by this Agreement or grant any license in connection with the said premises and/or outfit or any part thereof to any person, firm or company nor allow any other person, firm or company to use the premises or the outfit or any part thereof except to the extent necessary under the terms of this agreement and/or specifically permitted in writing by the Corporation.”

2.3 It appears that respondent No. 3-Dealer also appeared in the aforesaid civil suit, filed by the petitioner and submitted his separate written statement, wherein he denied the agreements in favour of the petitioner.

2.4 The trial Court, vide order dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-8), dismissed the stay application, filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC alongwith her suit.

2.5 The petitioner states that in the written statement submitted by respondent No. 1-Corporation, it was contended that if the facts mentioned by the petitioner in the civil suit are established, then respondent No. 1-Corporation would take action against respondent No. 3-Dealer in accordance with Clause No. 35, as noticed above.

2.6 According to the petitioner, she submitted a representation dated 14.08.2023 (Annexure P-10) to the Deputy General Manager of respondent No. 1-Corporation, asking him to take action against respondent No. 3-Dealer in accordance with Clause 35 of agreement dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P-7), which was followed by subsequent representations dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure P-11) and 06.09.2023 (Annexure P-12), howe