Advocates:
['M/S MANZOOR A DAR AND ASSOCIATES', '', 'M M DAR', 'G Q BHAT']

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT SRINAGAR

…..

CR No. 05/2019

Reserved on: 18.02.2021

Pronounced on: 29.04.2021

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Ors.

…...Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. M. M. Dar, Advocate

V/s

Abdul Rashid Dagga

….. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr Rizwan-ul-Zaman, Advocate

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1.

This civil revision petition is against the Order dated 06.11.2018, passed

by Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Anantnag, (for short <Trial

Court=) in a case titled Abdul Rashid Dagga v. HPCL and others,

whereby application of petitioners/petitioners, filed under Order VII Rule

11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), has been dismissed.

2.

Plaintiff 3 respondent herein, has filed a suit before the Trial Court,

seeking grant of decree for declaration declaring impugned orders issued

by defendants/petitioners qua cancellation of reconstitution of dealership

agreement and the termination of retail outlet dealership agreement in

respect of retail outlet being run by him at NH-1A Bijbehara, under the

name and style of R.K. Auto Care HPCL retail outlet as null and void,

ineffective and inoperative. He has also sought grant of a decree for

permanent prohibitory injunction restraining petitioners / defendants

from causing any sort of interference in the smooth running of retail

outlet, viz. R. K. Auto Care HPCL retail outlet Bijbehara and also

retraining them from forcibly taking the units installed in the unit of the

plaintiff/respondent.

2

CR No. 05/2019

3.

Defendants 3 petitioners herein filed an application under Order VII Rule

11 (a) & (d) of CPC for rejection of plaint, stating that retail outlet was

awarded to one Ravinder Kapoor as sole proprietor to run retail

dealership of Bijbehara District Anantnag vide dealership agreement

dated 09.09.1983; in terms whereof, he was not authorized to assign or

transfer dealership licence to any third person. It was also contended by

petitioners in their application before the Trial Court that reconstitution

proposal submitted by Shri Ravinder Kapoor for inducting Shri Ravinder

Kumar as minority partner with 49% share was accepted by petitioners

in principle with a condition that the outlet which was under a dealer

owned category would be converted as Company Leased category by

taking the retail outlet site on lease and, in this regard, dealership

agreement dated 23.10.2003, was executed between Sh. Ravinder

Kapoor and Sh. Ravinder Kumar as partners of M/s R.K. Auto Care firm.

It was also stated that however, later it came to the notice of petitioners

that Shri Ravinder Kumar, a new inducted partner, was also a partner and

signatory to a dealership agreement of SKO dealership viz M/s Kathua

Service Station, Kathua dated 01.09.2000, which fact was not disclosed

by them at the time of reconstitution as a person who is already having

SKO dealership, cannot have retail outlet dealership in view of multiple

dealership norms of the petitioner-Corporation and, therefore, vide letter

dated 04.02.2008, the said reconstitution was cancelled and dealership

agreement dated 23.10.2003, was also cancelled. The said cancellation

of reconstitution was never challenged by Shri Ravinder Kapoor or by

Shri Ravinder Kumar and, thus, said decision of the petitioners has

already attained finality in the year 2008 itself. Thereafter, Shri Ravinder

Kapoor was advised vide letter dated 04.02.2008 to sign a fresh

dealership agreement with petitioner-Corporation, but he neither came

forward to sign dealership agreement nor entered into lease agreement. It

was also maintained that petitioner-Corporation was able to lay hands

over a copy of Power of Attorney dated 26.07.1990 purportedly executed

by Shri Ravinder Kapoor in favour of Shri Ravinder Kumar, whereby Sh.

Ravinder Kapoor had handed over the management and control of retail