Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Indra Filling Station vs Union Of India And Others on 10 September, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119261-DB
122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1251 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.09.2024
M/s Indra Filling Station
...Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:- Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate and
Ms. Nitika Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate and
Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)
CM No.3006-LPA of 2024
Application under Section 151 CPC for seeking condonation of
the delay of 208 days in re-filing the appeal is allowed, in view of the
averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of learned
counsel for the appellant. Delay of 208 days in filing the appeal is, hereby,
condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
The present Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of the order
dated 03.08.2023 passed in CWP No.25361 of 2018, whereby learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition and upheld the termination of the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119261-DB
dealership of the appellant, which has been done on 08.06.2018 (Annexure
P-30). The appeal filed by the appellant had also been dismissed by the
Appellate Authority vide the order dated 12.09.2018 (Annexure P-36).
2. Learned Single Judge had noticed that on account of the
Inspection Report dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure P-9), the variation in Mb
Nozzle of GVR DU was observed and the seals of Pulsar were broken and
accordingly, a show cause notice dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-8) had been
served upon the appellant as to why the dealership agreement should not be
terminated. In the reply, the contest has been raised on the basis of the report
and the DGM came to the conclusion that there was soldering on the part of
the appellant and the dealership agreement was liable to be terminated.
3. The Learned Single Judge also noticed that as per the policy of
the Corporation itself, the dealership was liable to be terminated, if there is
tampering with the equipment in order to maintain high standard and therefore,
keeping in view the limited powers of the judicial review, the judgments of the
Apex Court in Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, 1964 AIR
(Supreme Court) 477 and the Division Bench of this Court in Indian Oil
Corporation Limited and ors. vs. Punjab Motor Store and ors. (LPA No.441
of 2022, decided on 29.09.2022) were kept in mind.
4. Apart from the said judgments another judgment of the Apex
Court in M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar
India (P) Ltd., (2023) 2 SCC 703, was also relied upon to held that the
adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority had dealt with the
issues raised by the appellant and the Appellate Authority had returned
categorical findings qua the issues. Resultantly, keeping in view the judgments
of the Apex Court whereby it has been time and again held that in contractual
matters, the Court cannot interfere unless and until there is malafide or
violation of prescribed procedure or violation of principles of natural justice.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119261-DB
Learned Single Judge, accordingly, has held that in the absence of such
malafide, there is no ground warranting interference under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India.
5. Learned Senior Counsel has intended to controvert the procedure
followed and tried to raise the issue that the reports, which have been relied
upon, however, are not liable to be taken into consideration, as the appellate
Authority did not give a proper hearing, as such.
6. We have perused the order of the Appellate Authority, which
would go on to show that in pursuance of the earlier directions issued,
apparently, both the appellants Surinder Kumar and Kiran Bala, husband and
wife, had appeared for the subject hearing without any counsel. However,
three persons were accompanying them and the respondent-Corporation's
official had not permitted those persons to address/represent their case and
had only asked the partners to orally submit their case. No written submission
as such had been made and both the partners had left the proceedings during
the hearing and refused to join the proceedings subsequently. Thereafter, only
an e-mail had been sent and the officials had come from Mumbai and in the
presence of the officials of the Corporation, the proceedings were concluded
in view of the earlier directions issued by this Court.
7. Learned Senior counsel has also submitted that no such date was
given, but he is not in a position to rebut the fact that certain other persons
were accompanying the appellants, who were insisting on being heard but the
same was declined by the officials of the respondent-Corporation in view of the
lack of authority/instructions. The earlier order, as such, did not give a licence
to the appellants to get other persons with them, who were not associated in the
running of the dealership as such. The principle of natural justice cannot be
extended to such a level so as to introduce a fresh person in the hearing. The
issue, as such, is now sought to be raised, apparently, to bring into the ambit
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119261-DB
the disputed questions of fact as to whether the report is correct or not which
would not be in the purview of the Writ Court also.
8. Today, we are informed that the dealership, where the business
is being conducted, had been taken over and has further been allotted to one
Dhanvir Kaur as the same was on the defence land but the lease has not been
renewed beyond 30.09.2016. Eventually, the UOI has taken over the
possession as such of the site and said Dhanvir Kaur also had filed CWP
No.10585 of 2023 to take possession of the articles as such which were
available when the site was taken over by the Estate Officer. Certain
directions were, thus, issued on 07.12.2023 by learned Single Judge that the
IOCL was given liberty to dispose of the stock from the place of storage or
any other place and after a period of expiry of six weeks from the date of said
order, the IOCL shall hand over the possession of the site to the Estate
Officer. We are further informed that the necessary compliance was done after
getting extension vide order dated 29.01.2024 passed in CM No.831-CWP of
2024 in the said case.
9. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the lis has
come to an end, keeping in view the fact that the site of the dealership itself is
no longer in existence and the UOI has taken over the possession of the same.
The argument which has, now, been raised is absolutely academic as such, at
this point of time. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the
same is dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
10.09.2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
neetu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
4 of 4
