Allahabad High Court
M/S Pilania Indane Gas Service vs Union Of India Thru Sec, Ministry ... on 28 September, 2011
Bench: Amitava Lala, Ashok Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70674 of 2010.
M/s Pilania Indane Gas Service.... .... .. Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others. .... .... .. Respondents.
--------
Present:
(Hon. Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon. Mr. Justice Ashok Srivastava)
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Verma, Senior Advocate,
Mr. Ram Kaushik and
Mr. Prateek Tyagi.
For the Respondents : Mr. Prakash Padia.
--------
Amitava Lala, J.-- This writ petition has been filed on 02nd December, 2010 challenging the order dated 02nd December, 2009 passed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. terminating the distributorship agreement existing between the petitioner and the Corporation. Therefore, first question arose in the mind of the Court as to what is the ground of laches in filing the writ petition challenging the order dated 02nd December, 2009. Criptic explanation has been given with regard to pendency of proceeding before the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, Ghaziabad in connectioin with wrong information alleging the income of the petitioner, being one of the conditions for termination of distributorship agreement, and passing of the order by the Income Tax Authority dated 19th January, 2010 pursuant thereto. However, we do not find such explanation as satisfactory. Even if we hold and say that such explanation is sufficient, but such sufficiency can not overcome the laches beyond 19th January, 2010 without any explanation therefor. Hence, in view of the judgments reported in 1975 (4) SCC 285 (Aflatoon Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi) and 2010 (4) SCC 532 (Sawaran Lata and others Vs. State of Haryana and Others) writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
Learned Counsel appearing fot the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner has been fortified with various judgments. The judgments are relied upon mostly on two grounds, i.e. whether alternative remedy of arbitration can be a ground for refusal of a writ petitioin and/or there is no bar for judicial review in connection with the contractual obligation. So far as the point that alternative remedy is no bar for invocation of writ jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported in 2011 (4) Scale 745 (Union of India & others Vs. Tantia Constructions Pvt. Ltd.), 2003 (2) SCC 107 (Harbans Lal Sahania & Another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others), 2010 (3) SCC 321 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporatioin Ltd. & Others Vs. Super Highway Services & Another), 2008(6) A.D.J. 319 (M/s Navin Filling Station, Nawabganj, Bareilly Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.and Others) and 2007 (8) SCC 338 (Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. VS. State of U.P. and others). Similarly, he has also relied upon the judgments reported in 1990 (3) SCC 752 (Mahabir Auto Stores &Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others), 2006 (10) SCC 236 (Nobel Resources Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa & Others) and 1998 (8) SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trademarks Mumbai & Others) to show that scope of judicial review in connection with contractual obligatioin is no bar.
We have no querrel with the proposition of law. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has unfettered rights. But as the power is high, the control should be higher. Therefore, writ Court normally restricts its intervention only when the question of unfail play, arbitrary or malafide action on the part of the authority is there. In the instant case the distributorship has been cancelled due to non-availability of the supporting documents to establish the income. Therefore, due to suppression of material facts or not having requisite documents on 01st August, 2005, the distributorship agreement was terminated on 02nd December, 2009. The petitioner wanted to clarify the position and after obtaining the appropriate documents from the Income Tax Authority produced the same on 19th January, 2010. Therefore, if any authority does not act on the basis of such submission of documents, it was open for the petitioner to go before higher authority or appellate authority or to invoke the jurisdiction of arbitration for the purpose of appropriate adjudication. It is not a case of unfair play or arbitrary or malafide exercise of power, without jurisdiction, infringement of fundamental right, violation of principles of natural justice nor the vires of the Act has been challenged to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court inspite of having alternative remedy.
Against this background, the petitioner is not able to convince the Court to pass any favourable order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on contest, however, without imposing any cost.
In any event, passing of this order will no way affect the right of the petitioner to proceed before appropriate forum or authority in accordance with law, if so advised.
(Justice Amitava Lala)
I agree.
(Justice Ashok Srivastava)
Dt.: 28th September, 2011
MAA/-
Hon'ble Amitava Lala,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.
Under the authority of the Hon'ble Chief Justice additional cause list has been printed for the purpose of delivery of judgment and the same has been delivered at 2.00 P.M. in the Court upon notice to the parties.
The writ petition is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.
Dt./- 28.09.2011.
MAA/-
For judgment and order, see order of the date passed on the separate sheets (three pages).
Dt./- 28.09.2011.
MAA/-
