Shanti Service Station And Ors. vs Indian Oil Corp. And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 85 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1.Rule.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner's request for resitement of its retail outlet/petrol pump. Further, resitement is sought at Durgapur Express High Way West Bengal. The quashing of the letter dated 27.4.1998 is also sought.

3. By letter dated 27.4.1998, petitioner was informed that its request for resitement of retail outlet could be not acceded to in view of the dealership having been terminated.

4. I have heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior counsel for the petitioner, in support of the petition. Mr. Kaul submitted that this was a hard case, where the petitioner had to abandon the retail outlet and dealership awarded to him in Guwahati, Assam, on account of militancy and terrorists violence. In these circumstances, petitioner had applied for allotment of a fresh outlet in West Bengal in the year, 1996 Petitioner had been called for interview before the Selection Board. It is the petitioner's case that during the interview, Chairman of the Selection Board, advised the petitioner that rather than seeking allotment of fresh outlet in West Bengal, petitioner should apply for resitement under the policy. Accordingly, petitioner applied for resitement, which request was declined vide letter dated 27.4.1998. Petitioner, as noted earlier, is seeking quashing of this letter. Learned counsel submits that as the respondents have not denied the factum of existence of the resitement policy in their counter affidavit, petitioner who has suffered for long on account of compelling circumstances resulting in closure of the retail outlet in Assam, should be given some relief.

5. Mr. H.K.Puri, counsel for the respondent, questions the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition. He submits that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that the Chairman of the Selection Board, on whose alleged advice, the petitioner has applied for resitement, has not been made a party to the writ petition. Even otherwise, there is no cause to entertain the petition as the dealership was lawfully terminated by the respondent.

6. I have perused the documents on record, writ petition as well as the counter affidavit, as filed. The dealership of the petitioner was terminated vide letter dated 19.7.1991. The letter records that the petitioner had abandoned the depot and despite repeated requests, petitioner was not willing to operate the same. Respondents, accordingly, terminated the dealership vide letter dated 19.7.1991. Petitioner from 1991 to November, 1996 did not challenge the said termination, rather, it sought fresh allotment in West Bengal. Unfortunately, even that was not to be so because as per the petitioner, the advice given to him was to apply for resitement. Although, nothing is placed on record, one can proceed on the assumption that the petitioner's request for fresh allotment was not acceded to. The resitement has been refused by the respondent on the ground that the earlier outlet had been terminated and in cases of termination, resitement would not be made. This apart, Mr. Puri, submits that there is no policy for resitement outside the State. The additional affidavit, filed by the petitioner, attempted to give an instance, where resitement had been done outside the State. Mr. Puri submits that assuming there was an instance of non-observance of policy, it would not provide a ground to the petitioner to seek its enforcement.

7. In the instant case, dealership had been terminated as far back as July, 1991 and the petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the same, rather, only in 1996, fresh allotment was sought, which also was not sanctioned and petitioner then made the prayer for resitement on the basis of some advice, said to have been given by the Chairman of the Selection Board, who is not a party in this writ petition. Moreover, there is merit in the submission that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion and keeping in mind the delay entailed, no cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and there being no general policy for resitement outside the State, the writ petition is devoid of merit. No ground is made out for entertaining this petition in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Writ petition is dismissed.