Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Vimal Filling Station And ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 6 July, 2022
RSA 1886 of 2019 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA 1886 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 06, 2022
M/s Vimal Filling Station and another ... Appellant
Vs.
BPCL and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present : Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J. (Oral)
The instant regular second appeal by appellant M/s
Vimal Filling Station and another is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 05.03.2019 of the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Nuh, Mewat, whereby appeal of
respondents Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (hereinafter to
be referred as 'the BPCL') and others was allowed and
judgment and decree dated 27.10.2017 of the Court of learned
Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mewat was set aside.
1 of 8
Heard Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the
appellant and Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the respondent
and perused the records.
The BPCL issued an advertisement regarding
allotment of petrol pumps and which was published in the
newspapers. Mr. Shakuntala Devi appellant and her husband
Mahender Pratap filed two different applications separately for
allotment of an outlet. It is a dispute over the outlet issued to the
wife on 02.022004. The main stand of the BPCL is that both
husband and wife were allotted separate outlets on the same
date, i.e. 02.02.2004 and since under the policy of the BPCL
multiple outlets could not be allocated to the same family and
had cancelled the allotment made in favour of the wife on the
grounds of suppression of material facts by the plaintiff
appellant. The stand of the plaintiff Shakuntala Devi is that she
had never suppressed any material facts and the show cause
notice Ex.D15 leading to cancellation of LOI is based on claim
of the BPCL that a false affidavit has been submitted and that
2 of 8
too the proceedings against them had got initiated after more
than 19 years the outlet has been running and, thus, had sought
a suit for declaration for setting aside such an order of
cancellation of the outlet with consequential relief of permanent
injunction restraining the defendant, the BPCL from cancelling
the same and creating hurdles in the smooth functioning of their
outlet.
The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings
framed the following issues:-
1. whether the plaintiffs are entitled for
declaration to the effect that termination
notice dated 13.01.2014 is illegal, null and
void? OPP.
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs
are entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to
try and entertain the present suit.? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come with
clean hands and have suppressed the true
3 of 8
and material facts from the Court/ OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi or
any cause of action to file the present suit?
OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing
the present suit by their own act and conduct?
OPD.
8. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for
mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary
parties? OPD.
9. Relief.
The plaintiffs to prove their case examined PW1
Vijay Kumar special power of attorney holder of plaintiff
Shankuntla Devi who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and
proved documents Ex.P1 to P6 and closed the evidence.
On behalf of defendants, Vikram Singh Thakur
testified as DW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.DW1/A in
evidence and proved on record documents Ex.D1 to D17 and
closed the evidence.
The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree
dated 27.10.2017 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by setting
4 of 8
aside the termination dated 13.01.2014 to be illegal, null and
void and further granting relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the
retail outlet of the plaintiff or any coercive steps.
Against this judgment an appeal was sought by the
BPCL which stood allowed vide judgment dated 05.03.2019
passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Nuh (Mewat) by
setting aside the findings of the trial Court. It is in this
background the present regular second appeal has come about.
In the light of admitted legal proposition as has been
laid down in 'Kirodi (since deceased) through his L.R. Vs.
Ram Parkash and others' Civil Appeal No. 4988 of 2019;
SLP(C) No. 11527 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019, the Court is
not supposed to frame substantial question of law in view of the
provisions enshrined under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act,
1918 which has its application to the States of Punjab and
Haryana.
Appreciating the submissions, the testimony of DW1
5 of 8
Vikram Singh Thakur Manager of the BPCL in his statement
categorically accepts the fact that the guidelines Ex.A1 on the
basis of which termination order has come about are not
mandatory and therefore is illustrative of the fact that it was by
no means authorizing that husband and wife as is in the present
case cannot apply and allotted LOI outlet simultaneously. It is in
consequence of the same very advertisement, the husband and
the wife applied for grant of an outlet which was made on
02.02.2004 to both the sides as per Ex.D10 and Ex.D12,
respectively.
To the specific query of the Court how or by what
means there is suppression of material facts by the present
plaintiff which has led to the termination order dated 13.01.2014,
these guidelines certainly cannot attain to be mandatory unless
or until provided for.
This Court cannot lost sight of the fact that husband
and the wife both executed separate lease deeds Ex.D9 and
D11 and which were duly scrutinized and accepted by the
6 of 8
defendant, the BPCL and what has perplexed is that one and
the same officer has scrutinized the documents and signed the
same and if it was a case of malfeasance by the officials what
administrative action has been initiated against him, the counsel
for the BPCL could not specify.
The learned trial Court has given a well reasoned
findings holding that both the husband and the wife were offered
retail outlets subject to fulfilling the conditions of the same
which they complied and executed lease deeds in favour of the
BPCL.
More so, the action has come about after more than
19 years is an adverse circumstance to hold that all was not well
with the conduct of the respondents and as has been argued on
behalf of the appellant counsel which is impregnated with malice
and malafideness.
In the impugned findings, the learned first appellate
Court while reversing the findings of the trial Court has fallen
into an error by holding that it was necessary for the husband
7 of 8
after receiving the letter of intent to inform the company that his
wife too has been issued one. Admittedly both the husband and
wife are major and has separately applied and got executed the
BPCL agreement separately with the company and how there is
a material concealment in the affidavit Ex.D4 made by the
present plaintiff, the counsel was unable to impress upon the
same and which was the primary reason for the first appellate
Court reversing the findings which is based on surmises and
conjunctures and incorrect appreciation of evidence on the
records.
In the light of the aforegoing discussion, the findings
of the learned trial Court are well reasoned and needs to be
upheld. The impugned findings needs to be set aside by way of
acceptance of present regular second appeal.
July 06, 2022 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
