LPA Nos.962/2011, 985/2011 & 986/2011 Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment Reserved On: November 28, 2011

Judgment Delivered On: December 16, 2011

+

LPA 962/2011

PARMOD MALIK

..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar, Advocate with

Mr.Tanamaya Mehta, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

….Respondents

Through: Mr.B.V.Niren, Advocate for R-1

Ms.Mala Narayan, Advocate for R-2

LPA 985/2011

ROSHAN LAL & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar, Advocate with

Mr.Tanamaya Mehta, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

….Respondents

Through: Mr.B.V.Niren, Advocate for R-1

Ms.Mala Narayan, Advocate for R-2

LPA 986/2011

VIRENDER SINGH

..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Sanat Kumar, Advocate with

Mr.Tanamaya Mehta, Advocate

versus

2011:DHC:6468-DB

LPA Nos.962/2011, 985/2011 & 986/2011 Page 2 of 10

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

….Respondents

Through: Mr.B.V.Niren, Advocate for R-1

Ms.Mala Narayan, Advocate for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1.

Four writ petitions, three of which were filed by

appellants Parmod Malik, Roshal Lal & Anr. and Virender Singh,

have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide

impugned order dated October 12, 2011. Appellant Parmod

Malik

had

sought

quashing

of

the

Notification

dated

06.09.2006 and as a result prayed that IBP Company be

restrained from terminating the supply of petroleum products

to him with respect to the sales outlet on Panipat-Sanouli

Road. Alternatively it was prayed that if the first relief was not

granted, the oil company be directed to surrender 8094

sq.mtr. land leased by him to the oil company. Appellant

Roshan Lal and co-appellant Surender Gupta have likewise

made prayers similar to the prayers made by Parmod Malik.

Appellant Virender Singh had pleaded pari materia with the

writ petition filed by Parmod Malik and has sought similar

relief.

2.

The learned Single Judge has held that the issue

raised in the writ petitions was squarely covered by a decision

of a Division Bench of this Court reported as 147 (2008) DLT

764 (DB) IBP Company Ltd. Vs. Nand Kishore Bajpai & Ors.

3.

Since learned counsel for the appellants had

strenuously urged that the issues raised in the writ petition(s)

2011:DHC:6468-DB

LPA Nos.962/2011, 985/2011 & 986/2011 Page 3 of 10

filed by the appellants were distinct from the issues raised and

decided by the Division Bench in Nand Kishore Bajpai‟s case

(supra), we propose to firstly analyze the decision of the

Division Bench and then look into the issues raised in the writ

petitions filed by the appellants.

4.

At the outset it may be noted that the Division

Bench was dealing with a challenge to the Notification dated

06.09.2006 i.e. the same Notification which has been

challenged by the appellants.

5.

The decision of the Division Bench commences its

journey by noting in para 2 of the decision, that the writ

petitioners were either land owners who had leased land to oil

companies for running petroleum retail outlets and were

appointed Maintenance and Handling Contractors (M&H

Contractors) or were ad-hoc dealers running the outlets on

contract but under supervision of the oil companies.

6.

Thereafter,

the

learned

Division

Bench,

in

paragraphs 3 to 5 of its decision, noted the controversy; being

the difference of opinion amongst two learned Single Judges of

this Court. Declining relief, one of whom took the opinion that

the oil companies could not sub-lease the lands taken on lease

from the writ petitioners for operating retail outlets and

declining relief another learned Single Judge took a view to the

contrar