Pradeep Kant, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri O.P. Srivastava and Sri Manish Jauhari, Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Sharma for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition challenges the action of the respondent-Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), showing all the tank trucks owned by the petitioner as black-listed on industry basis on the website, though no order of black-listing admittedly has been passed against these tank trucks or against the Carrier, namely, the transporter (petitioner). Relevant facts for considering the present controversy are as under: The petitioner had entered into a bulk petroleum products road transport agreement dated 30.3.2009 with the Corporation. The petitioner in the aforesaid agreement had provided five tank trucks bearing Registration numbers as (1) UP- 78 AT 5614; (2) UP-44 C7767; (3) UP-78 T9860; (4) UP-32 CZ0997; and (5) UP-78 AN 7953. While finalizing the tender of another depot at Barauni in Bihar, it was allegedly detected that another truck with the same Registration No. UP-78 AT5614 was entered under the contract in the name of M/s. Maa Vindhyavasini Services. Since the two vehicles cannot have the same registration number, therefore, it was noticed by the Corporation that one of the trucks is not the genuine tank truck. The Corporation, therefore, carried out some investigations with the bankers etc., which revealed that the petitioner was not the owner of the genuine Tank Truck No. UP-78 AT5614 and, therefore, the information furnished by him about the said tank truck was false. The conduct of the petitioner since was in violation of the provisions of the Transportation Agreement and the Transport Discipline Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as 'TDG'), his agreement was terminated after issuing a show-cause notice dated 2.12.2009, vide order dated 31.12.2009. The reply submitted by the petitioner on 10.12.2009 to the show-cause notice was considered before terminating the agreement.
(3.) THE petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing No. 206 (MB) of 2010 challenging the order of termination, which was dismissed by the Court on 12.1.2010, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach for arbitration, as per the terms of the agreement. THE petitioner, thereafter, approached for the arbitration and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Corporation on 12.3.2010. In these proceedings, a reference was made for adjudicating the dispute between the parties in regard to the order of termination in view of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act'). In the meantime, the Corporation stopped the operations of the trucks under the contract in view of the order of termination, aggrieved by which, the petitioner moved an application under Section-9 of the Arbitration Act, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 16 of 2010, in re: Atul Kumar Jain v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others. The learned District Judge Lucknow, vide order dated 22.5.2010 allowed the petitioner to operate the tank trucks under the contract, till the passing of the award by the Arbitrator. The order passed by the learned District Judge became the subject-matter of challenge in F.A.F.O. No. 728 of 2010 in re: M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Atul Kumar Jain, wherein no interference was made by the Court, but affirmed the order passed by the learned District Judge, with the direction that the arbitration proceedings be concluded within two months As a result of the aforesaid directives, the petitioner was allowed to operate all the five tank trucks under the contract, for the period given therein, during which period, his term of the contract ended and thus, though he was allowed to carry on the transportation work, till the term of his contract, but he has not been allowed to continue thereafter. ;