M/S Raj Kaushal Filling Station ... vs Union Of India Thr.Secy.Ministry ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5078 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
 
Lucknow Bench Lucknow
 
----------- 
 
									[ A.F.R.] 
 

 
Court No. - 27
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 9848 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S Raj Kaushal Filling Station Thr.Its Prop.Poonam Verma
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Thr.Secy.Ministry Of Petroleum,New Delhi &Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.R.Masoodi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,K.S.Pawar
 

 

 
Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.

Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri A.R. Masoodi learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.S.Pawar, Dr. L.P. Mishra, Shri I.H.Farooqui learned counsels for the respondents.

2. Instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Chief Regional Manager terminating the dealership agreement dated 5.8.2006.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Dr. L.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents that controversy should be relegated to appropriate forum in pursuance to provision contained in Para 6.3.5 of Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005 (in short hereinafter referred as MDG)

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order of termination has been passed by the Chief Regional Manager who lacks jurisdiction under MDG. Since, order has been passed without jurisdiction, power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be exercised vide 1987 (13) ALR 680, Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Mgt. of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur etc.

5. During the course of hearing, Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel representing the respondent Oil Company fairly agreed that in case, impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error then this court may interfere under extraordinary remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution of India setting aside the impugned order and relegating the matter back to the competent authority.

6. Power of appellate court or the civil court is much wider than the power of this court available under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India vide 2003 (VI) SCC 220, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and another Versus Ramesh Chander Agarwal and others, 2003 (VII) SCC 66, Dipak Chandra Ruhidas Versus Chandan Kumar Sarkar, 2003 (V) SSC 395, Bimal N. Desai Versus State of Karnataka and others, 2003 (VII) SCC 410 National Highway Authority of India Versus Ganga Enterprises and 2001 (10) SCC 617 Union of India and others Versus Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd.

7. However, fact remains that whenever it is alleged by citizen that the authority has acted without jurisdiction then this court may interfere under extraordinary remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Without entering into factual controversy and relegating the matter to the appellate authority, in case, court found that the authority has acted without jurisdiction then order may be set aside with liberty to competent authority to pass appropriate order afresh. In such situation, appellate forum may be by-passed to ascertain the jurisdiction of the authority who has passed an adverse order. Hence, we proceed to consider the question of jurisdiction of the Chief Regional Manager who had passed the impugned order, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

8. In pursuance to publication dated 22.2.2006 in the newspaper, petitioner had applied for allotment of dealership in question. Being successful on merit, petitioner was alloted the dealership in question under "women category" in pursuance to advertisement (supra) at Village Beniganj, District Hardoi. Agreement was executed on 10.8.2010 between the petitioner and respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. A copy of the agreement has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner Poonam Verma has been shown as proprietor of M/S Raj Kaushal Filling Station, Beniganj, Hardoi under the dealership agreement. In pursuance to agreement, the petitioner installed the outlet for sale of petroleum product and continue with her business through the firm. On 10.2.2011, inspection of petitioner's outlet was held by Joint Industry Team and quality and quantity of the product was found to be satisfactory.

9. According to petitioner's counsel at later stage a show cause notice dated 20.4.2011 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) was served with the allegation that samples collected from petitioner's outlet were sent to Laboratory for testing on 18.02.2011. After sending show cause notice dated 20.4.2011, Corporation by order dated 22.4.2011 suspended the petitioner's dealership licence. The petitioner submitted reply in response to show cause notice dated 20.4.2011.

10. It appears that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 6314(MB) of 2011 against the show cause notice and suspension of sale of MS/HSD dealership on the basis of inspection report dated 10.2.2011. Order of suspension was stayed by this Court by interim order 30.6.2011. Subject to aforesaid backdrop, by impugned order dated 16.11.2012 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition the dealership agreement has been terminated on the ground of failure of retail outlet nozzle sample in the laboratory test report dated 26.3.2011.

11. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. Without entering into merit of the controversy, we proceed to decide the question as to whether the Regional Manager is the competent authority to pass an order of termination of dealership agreement under MDG or otherwise on any other ground or any other provision.

12. Under the terms of agreement (supra) it shall be incumbent upon the petitioner to abide by rules and regulations and guidelines issued by the respondent Corporation as well as Government of India. Clause 26 of the agreement empowers the Corporation to terminate the contract. Clause 42 of the agreement provides that the dealer undertakes faithfully and promptly to carry out, observe and perform all directions or rules given or made form time to time by the Corporation for the proper carrying on of the dealership of the Corporation. The conditions on which the dealership agreement may be terminated has been provided under Para 55 of the agreement. For convenience, para 55 of the agreement is reproduced as under:-

"55) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY HEREIN CONTAINED,THE Corporation SHALL BEAT LIBERTY TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT FORTHWITH UPON OR AT ANY TIME AFTER THE HAPPENING OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING NAMELY:-

(A) IF THE DEALER SHALL COMMIT A BREACH OF ANY OF THE CONVENANTS AND STIPULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT, AND FAIL TO REMEDY SUCH BREACH WITHIN FOUR DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF A WRITTEN NOTICE FROM THE Corporation IN THAT REGARD.

(B) UPON

I.THE DEATH OR ADJUDICATION AS INSOLVENT OF THE DEALER, IF HE BE AN INDIVIDUAL:

II.THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP OF THE DEALER'S FIRM OR THE DEATH OR ADJUDICATION AS INSOLVENT OF ANY PARTNER OF THE FIRM, IF THE DEALER BE A FIRM:

III.THE LIQUIDATION, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR OTHERWISE OR THE PASSING OF AN EFFECTIVE RESOLUTION FOR THE WINDING UP, IF THE DEALER BE A COMPANY OR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY.

(C) IF ANY ATTACHMENT IS LEVIED AND CONTINUED TO BE LEVIED FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN DAYS UPON THE EFFECTS OF THE DEALER OR ANY INDIVIDUAL PARTNER FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE DEALER'S FIRM OR ANY MEMBER OF THE DEALER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.

(D) IF THE DEALER OR ANY PARTNER IN THE DEALER'S FIRM OR ANY MEMBER OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY APPOINTED AS DEALER HEREUNDER SHALL BE CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

(E) IF A RECEIVER SHALL BE APPOINTED OF ANY PROPERTY OR ASSETS OF THE DEALER OR OF ANY PARTNER IN THE DEALER'S FIRM OR OF ANY MEMBER OF THE DEALER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.

(F) THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE DEALER BY THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES FOR THE STORAGE OF PETROLEUM AND OTHER PRODUCTS SUPPLIED BY THE Corporation IS CANCELLED OR REVOKED.

(G) IF THE DEALER SHALL FOR ANY REASON MAKE DEFAULT IN PAYMENT TO THE Corporation IN FULL OR HIS OUT-STANDING AS APPEARING IN Corporation'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEYOND 4 DAYS OF DEMAND BY THE Corporation.

(H) IF THE DEALER DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE Corporation IN CONNECTION WITH SAFE PRACTICES TO BE FOLLOWED BY HIM IN THE SUPPLY/ STORAGE OF THE Corporation'S PRODUCTS OR OTHERWISE.

(I) IF THE DEALER SHALL CONTAMINATE OR TAMPER WITH THE QUALITY OF ANY OF THE PRODUCTS, SUPPLIED BY THE COR-PORATION.

(J) IF THE DEALER SHALL SELL THE PRODUCTS, SUPPLIED BY THE Corporation AT PRICES HIGHER THAN THOSE FIXED BY THE Corporation/ STATUTORY AUTHORITY.

(K) IF THE DEALER SHALL EITHER HIMSELF OR BY HIS SERVANTS OR AGENTS COMMIT OR SUFFER TO BE COMMITTED ANY ACT WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE REGIONAL MANAGER OF THE Corporation FOR THE TIME BEING IN WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL, IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF GOOD NAME OF THE Corporation OR ITS PRODUCTS THE REGIONAL MANAGER SHALL NOT BE BOUND TO GIVE REASON FOR SUCH DECISION.

(L) IF ANY INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE DEALER IN HIS APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS A DEALER SHALL BE FOUND TO BE UNTRUE OR INCORRECT IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT.

THE Corporation'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CLAUSE SHALL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF ITS OTHER RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AGAINST THE DEALER. IN THE EVENT OF THE Corporation TERMINATING THIS AGREEMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE, IT SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO PAY FOR ANY LOSS OR COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF SUCH TERMINATION PROVIDED THAT THE SUPPLY OF ANY PETROLEUM PRODUCTS BY THE Corporation TO THE DEALER, PENDING EXPIRY OF ANY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OR AFTER ANY, ACT, CONTRAVENTION OR OMISSION BY THE DEALER ENTITLING THE Corporation TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT SHALL HAVE BECOME KNOWN TO THE Corporation SHALL NOT IN ANY WAY PREJUDICE OR AFFECT THE RIGHT OF THE Corporation TO REVOKE AND/OR ENFORCE THE TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT AND THE LICENCE GRANTED HEREUNDER."

13. Under Clause (I) of Para 55 (supra) it has been provided that the dealer shall not contaminate or temper with the quality of any of the products, supplied by the Corporation. Clause (K) of Para 55 further provides that if the dealer either himself or through his servants or agents commit or suffer to be committed any act which in the opinion of the regional manager of the Corporation for the time being in whose decision shall be final if the conduct is prejudicial to the interest of good name of the Corporation or its products. The Regional Manager shall not be bound to give reason for such decision.

14.From the plain reading of Para 55 of the agreement, it appears that power of Regional Manager has been confined to conditions enumerated in clause (K) and with regard to other items a decision is to be taken by appropriate authority.

15.Clause (L) of Para 55 further provides that in case any information given by the dealer is found to be untrue or incorrect with regard to material thing then Corporation have got right to terminate the agreement. Clause (L) does not specify the Officer who will be entitled to terminate the agreement on behalf of the Corporation. The word "Corporation" has been defined under Para 61 of the agreement, which is, for convenience reproduced as under:-

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE PRESENTS, THE EXPRESSION "THE Corporation' SHALL UNLESS REPUGNANT TO TO THE CONTEXT OR MEANING THERE OF BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE PRESENTS, THE EXPRESSION 'THE DEALER' SHALL UNLESS REPUGNANT TO THE CONTEXT OR MEANING THEREOF BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE (1) WHERE THE DEALER IS A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, HIS/HER HEIRS EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, THE PARTNERS OR PARTNER FOR THE TIME BEING OF SUCH FIRM THE SURVIVORS OR SURVIOR OR SUCH PARTNERS AND THE HEIRS, EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS OF THE LAST SURVIVING PARTNER (3) WHERE THE DEALER IS A COMPANY OR OTHER INCORPORATED BODY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND PERMITTED ASSIGNS."

16. A plain reading of Para 61 reveals that Corporation shall include its successor or assigns for the purpose of agreement. Meaning thereby, Corporation shall be represented by a person who has been assigned to discharge obligations.

17.Attention has not been invited towards any provision contained therein which confers power on the Regional Manager to terminate the agreement in case, where a decision is taken on account of failure of retail outlet nozzle sample in the laboratory test. Accordingly, we have to interpret the word "assign" given in Para 61 of the agreement to other provision regulating the relationship between the Corporation and the Dealer. It is not disputed that MDG-2005 regulate the procedure for handling of product at retail outlet by dealers.

18.In Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary 3rd Edition 2008 page 155-156, the words "assign" and "assignee" have been defined as under:-

"Assign--The word is variously applied; generally to transfer property, especially personal estate, or set over a right to another, or appoint a deputy; to set forth, as to assign error, false judgement.

Assignee-- "Assignee' means a person appointed by another to do any act or perform any business; also a person who takes some right, title or interest in things by an assignment from an assignor. They are divided into-(1) assignees by deed, as when a lessee of a term sells or assigns it to another and (2) assignees by law, as when property devolves upon an executor without any specific appointment, the executor is assignee in law to the testator.

Assignee includes the legal representative of a deceased assignee and references to the assignee of any person include references to the assignee of the legal representative or assignee of that person."

Keeping in view the aforesaid definitions of words "assign" and "assignee", MDG 2005 should be looked into.

19.It is admitted during the course of arguments by the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent that MDG is binding on the parties. Dr. L.P. Mishra learned counsel representing respondent Corporation submits that appellate forum have been provided under Clause 4 of the Head note of Para 6.3.5 of the MDG 2005. However, para 2.4.2 of MDG provides how sample of product may be collected from retail outlet of the Corporation. Para 2.4.2 of the MDG is for convenience reproduced as under:-

" 2.4.2 HSD - Oil company representative should collect three samples of 1 litre each from each tank of the ROs. One sample is to be retained by the dealer, one sample at division /territory/ regional office and one sample sent to the oil industry marketing laboratory for testing It would be the responsibility of the oil company representative drawing the sample to ensure that the following samples are collected and sent to the oil industry marketing laboratory for clinical tests.

(i) One (1x1 litre) sample of each tank drawn by him from the RO

(ii) One (1x1 litre) tank lorry sample of last two loads which was drawn and retained by the dealer for each tank (this should pertain to the tank which is connected to the dispensing unit from which the samples were taken by oil co. representative).

(iii)One (1x1 litre) reference sample of the supply location - this sample should be the one which is from the same tank from which the supply was made to the RO dealer and tank reference of which was mentioned on the delivery documents covering the supply to the retail outlets. If the RO has more than one tank for HSD and the last receipt of each of these tanks were on different days, corresponding reference sample of the supply location for these supplies would have to be sent for testing.

All the above samples should reach the laboratories for testing preferably within ten days of the collection of the samples."

20.The provision with regard to Drawal of samples by joint industry teams has been provided under Para 2.4.3. of the MDG 2005, which for convenience is reproduced as under:-

2.4.3. DRAWAL OF SAMPLES BY JOINT INDUSTRY TEAMS

Joint industry team members can collect samples from retail outlets irrespective of results of indicative/suggestive tests like density test, stock variation, filter paper etc during joint inspections. These samples should be sealed and labeled as per Annexure 4 and jointly signed by the dealer/ his representative and the members of the joint industry team who are drawing the samples.

The procedure for drawal and dispatch of samples for testing would be the same as given in para (2) above.

It would be the responsibility of the concerned oil company member of the joint industry team or the senior officer of the team in the absence of any member from the concerned oil company to ensure that the samples are collected and sent to the oil industry marketing laboratory. In case of MS samples, wherever the laboratory is not equipped with the testing of octane number, then the second sample should be sent to the lab where CFR engine is available for octane number test.

All the samples should reach the respective laboratories for testing preferably within 10 days of the collection of the samples.

21. Admittedly in the present case, it is joint team which collected samples and sent it for lab test. Para 2.5 of the MDG 2005 provides general points to be observed in all cases. For convenience relevant portion from Para 2.5 MDG Guidelines is reproduced as under:-

2.5 GENERAL POINTS TO BE OBSERVED IN ALL CASES

A) All samples should preferably be suitably coded before sending to lab for testing within 10 days of drawal.

B) If all the sample passes the test, dealer should be intimated in writing and all pertinent retention samples at ROs, Divisions/Territory/Regions, dispatch locations can be disposed off.

C) If the sample fails, explanation of the dealer/transporters as applicable shall be called for in writing, giving details of failure and enclosing copy of the test report. In case, the explanation is not found satisfactory, appropriate action to be initiated against dealer/transporter.

D)In case of sample failure, in the event of request for testing by the dealer, the same to be considered on merits by the State Office/Regional/Zonal General Manager of the concerned Oil Company. If approved by GM, the sample of retail outlet retained by the dealer along with the counter sample retained with the Field Officer/Oil Company are to be tested as per the the guidelines, preferably, in presence of the Field Officer, RO dealer/representative and representative of QC Dept. of the Oil Co. after due verification of the samples. All the 3 samples should be tested only in the same lab, and if possible by the same person to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. The expenditure incurred for such testing should be recovered from the dealer. The decision of the GM, which would be based on the test results of all the 3 samples would be decisive and binding on all.

(E) Wherever dealer and transporter are the same, action needs to be taken against the dealer in his capacity as dealer or the transporter as the case may be in the event of sample failure.

(F) Whenever tank lorry sample is not retained/made available by the dealer to the inspecting officials at the time of drawal of sample from the RO, the same would not be considered for testing at a later stage. In such case, the result of the RO sample will be compared with the supply point sample and action if any will be initiated against the dealer only.

(G) In case of density/filter paper test failure, clinical test failure by mobile lab, sales and supply of all products will be suspended and samples will be drawn and send for testing. Laid down procedure will be followed and appropriate action will be taken based on the outcome of the test result.

(H) In case routine samples drawn from the retail Outlet fail, appropriate action will be taken against the dealership. Any unsold off spec product at the retail outlet will be appropriately disposed off by the concerned oil company before sales is recommended at the RO.

(I) The purpose of mentioning time frame for various activities e.g. sending samples to lab preferably within 10 days etc. is to streamline the system and is no way related to quality/result of the product.

(J) Whenever any one agency has detected any irregularity on account of quality and initiated investigation, parallel investigation by way of drawal of samples will not be carried out during pendency of the proceedings.

(K) In all cases where the samples are found to be off-spec. a subsequent sample should be drawn from the same RO within 3 months from the date of test report of the earlier sample."

22. The provision given in Para 2.5 (supra) is quite exhaustive and is binding. Clause (D) of Para 2.5 is relevant for adjudication of present controversy. Clause (D) provides that all three samples should be tested in the same lab and if possible by the same person to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. The expenditure incurred for such testing should be recovered from the dealer. The decision of the GM shall be based on the test resolution of all three samples and would be decisive and binding on all.

23. Thus, at the face of record, in view of Clause (D) of Para 2.5 a decision on the basis of test sample should be taken by General Manager whereas from the perusal of impugned order it appears that it is the Chief Regional Manager, who has gone to the test reports and reply submitted by the petitioner and taken final decision with regard to termination of agreement.

24. The impugned order reveals that in response to reply submitted to show cause notice its Regional Manager who has gone through the test report and took final decision in the matter. The lab test was also appreciated by Regional Manager. No decision seems to has been taken by General Manager in terms of Clause (D) of Para 2.5 (supra).

25. Though Dr. L.P. Mishra learned counsel for the respondent tried to defend the impugned order with the submission that the General Manager had ratified the decision of Regional Manager and applied mind to its report but nothing has been brought on record to indicate that at any stage General Manager was involved in the adjudicatory process.

26. The other limb of argument of Dr. L.P.Mishra learned counsel for the respondent is that the contract was executed between the parties and signed by Chief General Manager, who has been duly authorised by the Corporation. He further submitted that Chief General Manager has been empowered to sign the contract hence, he is competent authority to pass the impugned order with regard to termination of dealership. However, learned counsel could not invite attention of the court towards any provision with regard to right of Chief Regional Manager to terminate the contract in terms of agreement or under MDG 2005 is made out.

27. Once Dr. L.P.Mishra himself has placed reliance on MDG with regard to appellate forum then he does not seem to justify in taking different view or interpret otherwise with regard to right of General Manager to pass an order on the basis of lab test report in view of power conferred by Para 2.5 (D) of the MDG.

28. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from fact that order should have been passed by the General Manager no decision has been taken on the application moved by the petitioner with regard to sample test which has been refuted by the respondent's counsel.

29. While construing a provision, full effect is to be given to the language used therein, giving reference to the context and other provisions of the Statute. It is a settled legal principle of interpretation of Statute that no word be made redundant and every word in a statutory provision is to be given an effective meaning after determining the intent of the Legislature vide Deevan Singh vs. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi (2007)10 SCC 528, (2004)5 SCC 385 Deepal Girishbhai Son and others versus United India Insurance Co. Limited, Baroda and Prakash Kumar vs. State of Gujrat (2005) 2 SCC 409.

30. In case argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted then it shall amount to negation of the provision contained in Para 2.5 (D) (supra) which provides the manner in which decision is to be taken by the General Manager on the basis of test report. It is not disputed that the samples are taken valid by lab test and decision is to be taken in pursuance to MDG para 2.5.

31. A plain reading of Clause (D) (supra) reveals that after failure of sample or in case of contemplation of failure if a request is made by dealer then under Clause (D) sample shall be tested in the manner provided therein. All three lab reports with regard to three samples should be considered by General Manager whose decision shall be final and binding. The decision of the General Manager must be based on all the three samples to form final opinion.

32. In view of above, we are of the view that Clause (D) of Para 2.5 of the MDG 2005 opinion on the basis of lab test should be taken by General Manager and not by Regional Manager. The decision of the General Manager shall be the decision of Corporation as assignee. Corporation cannot proceed contrary to MDG 2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) which is effective since 1.8.2005. There appears to be no room of doubt that Chief General Manager has been conferred with the power to manage and regulate the dealership. Power of Chief Regional Manager seems to be confined to Clause (K) of the agreement which seems to be an exception to deal with particular situation. In any case MDG 2005 being binding on the parties only General Manager could have take decision on the basis of three test samples and not the Regional Manager. Of course decision of General Manager shall be subject to decision of appellate forum.

33. It may be noted that appellate forum provided under para 6.3.5 is higher forum then General Manager. For convenience relevant portion from Para 6.3.5 of the MDG 2005 is reproduced as under:-

"The decision taken on action against the dealer based on the reply received form him for the show cause notice has to be communicated to the dealer in writing and this should be a speaking order. In the event of termination, the dealer, within 30 days of the Order, will have the right to appeal before the appropriate authority who will be empowered to decide in the matter. The appeal must be disposed of within 90 days from the date of the appeal. The appropriate authority to hear the appeals shall be by an officer not below the rank of Executive Director."

34. In view of above, Regional Manager seems to be lack jurisdiction to take a decision on the basis of lab test report, hence, order with regard to revocation of agreement suffers from want of jurisdiction.

35. Since, we are of the view that impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, without entering into other ground raised and pleaded in the writ petition, we allow the writ petition on this sole ground.

36. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by Chief Regional Manager with all consequential benefit. It shall be open to the respondent Corporation to take a fresh decision keeping in view the observation made in the body of the present judgement.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 14.8.2013

Jyoti/ Madhu