Madras High Court
G.Vasanthakumaran vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 16 August, 2022
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
G.Vasanthakumaran ... Appellant
vs
1.Indian Oil Corporation Limited
139, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
Rep.by its General Manager
(Southern Region).
2.The General Manager
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
(Marketing Division)
Indian Oil Bhavan
139, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
3.Deputy General Manager
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
(Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry)
139, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against
the order dated 10.11.2021 in WP No.9207 of 2008.
___________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
For the Appellant : Mr.D.Jayasingh
For the Respondents : Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali
-for RR 1 to 3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated
10.11.2021 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant to
challenge the proceedings dated 17.01.2005 cancelling the retail
outlet dealership at Nagercoil granted to the appellant's father
N.Gopalakrishna Pillai as a freedom fighter, was dismissed by the
learned single Judge.
2. The facts on record show that the appellant's father was
allotted dealership of a retail outlet under the Freedom Fighters
Quota by the order dated 19.09.1994. The appellant's father
inducted his grand daughter Krishnakumari as a parter on
24.06.1996. On 03.05.1999, the appellant's father terminated the
partnership with Krishnakumari. However, on 14.5.1999, the
dealership was suspended by the respondent petroleum company.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
The appellant's father filed W.P.No.14534 of 1999 seeking
restoration of the dealership and the said writ petition was allowed
by the order dated 01.09.1999. Challenging the order dated
01.09.1999, Krishnakumari filed W.A.No.1822 of 1999 and the said
writ appeal was disposed of by the judgment dated 24.11.1999
directing the respondent to hear both parties and take a decision.
On 16.12.1999, the Indian Oil Corporation passed an order directing
the appellant's father to run the partnership along with
Krishnakumari. Challenging the order dated 16.12.1999, the
appellant's father filed W.P.No.737 of 2000. It is alleged that on
28.04.2000, the appellant's father bequeathed the dealership in
favour of his son, the appellant herein. By the order dated
25.10.2000, W.P.No.737 of 2000 filed by the appellant's father was
dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2000, the
appellant's father filed W.A.No.2007 of 2000. By the judgment
dated 12.02.2001, W.A.No.2007 of 2000 was allowed holding that
the appellant's father would be allowed to run the dealership.
Challenging the judgment dated 12.02.2001, Civil Appeal No.6517
of 2001 was filed and the same was disposed of by the order dated
19.11.2003 directing the Executive Manager to consider the case.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
The appellant's father reiterated that he did not want to continue
the business with Krishnakumari and, thereupon, on 14.06.2004,
the appellant's father died. On 16.07.2004, the appellant submitted
a representation to the respondent requesting to restore the
dealership in his favour. The appellant has also filed W.P.No.28492
of 2004 to seek direction for restoration of the dealership. However,
by the order dated 17.01.2005, the respondent Indian Oil
Corporation terminated the dealership. The operative portion of the
order dated 17.01.2005 reads thus:
"From the above the following is clear:
a) The distributorship was awarded to a partnership
firm consisting of two partners, viz. late Sri
Gopalakrishna Pillai and yourself in the year 1996.
b) Serious disputes arose between you and the later
Sri Gopalakrishna Pillai, which resulted in suspension
of the distributorship.
c) During the lift time of late Sri Gopalakrishna Pillai,
the disputes between you could not be resolved.
d) Sri Gopalakrishna Pillai died on 14.6.2004.
Consequently, the partnership between you and him
stands automatically dissolved, since the firm had
only two partners.
e) You are not able to come up with any proposal for
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
operating the distributorship even with the legal heirs
of late Sri Gopalakrishna Pillai. One of his sons, Sri
Vasanthakumaran has already made it clear that he
does not want to operate the distributorship with you.
f) Innumerable opportunities were given by us to you
as well as late Sri Gopalakrishna Pillai to resolve the
disputes in spite of which you could not resolve the
disputes. This has resulted in suspension of the
distributorship for a long time, causing serious
hardship to the customers and also damaging the
image and reputation of the Corporation."
The appellant then filed W.P.No.9207 of 2008 challenging the
termination order dated 17.01.2005, which was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge.
3. It is an admitted fact that an order of suspension of the
dealership was made in the year 1999 when it was run by the
appellant's father through the partner and the appellant had no
locus at any point of time. The learned Single Judge in paragraphs
13 and 14 of the impugned order noted that the appellant's father
had died in the year 2004 and the appellant was not granted
dealership after his death. Finding that the same could not be
restored or transferred in the appellant's favour after the death of
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
the original allottee, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant
failed to establish any right and dismissed the writ petition.
4. A separate litigation was taken up in regard to the order
dated 16.12.1999, which went upto the Supreme Court, where a
direction was given to the Indian Oil Corporation to reconsider
whether the dealership could be allowed to continue. The issue was
again considered and finding violation of the terms and conditions,
the order of cancellation of dealership was passed vide order dated
17.01.2005 and at the same time, the Indian Oil Corporation
submitted that there is no provision for inheritance of the LPG
dealership. In absence of such a provision, the appellant could not
have challenged the cancellation of the retail outlet dealership and
at the same time seek allotment of dealership in his name. He was
reckoned to be a third party in the absence of any provision for
inheritance of dealership. It is otherwise a fact that after termination
of the retail outlet dealership in the year 2005 it remained
inoperative throughout and by now a period of more than 18 years
has lapsed.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
5. In view of the above and considering the overall facts of the
case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed
by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and
the same is dismissed. No costs.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
16.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
kst
To
1.The General Manager (Southern Region)
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
139, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
2.The General Manager (Marketing Division)
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Indian Oil Bhavan
139, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
3.Deputy General Manager
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
(Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry)
139, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
The Hon'ble Chief Justice
and
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
(KST)
W.A.No.1765 of 2022
16.08.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
