- (1.) Petitioners have filed the present writ petition for setting aside the judgment dated 16.4.2010 (Annexure 14 to writ petition) as well as judgment dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure 11 to writ petition).
(2.) Facts arising out of present writ petition as stated are that Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Retail Outlet Dealer by the Respondent-Corporation through dealership agreement dated 17.11.2006. Petitioners have not violated any terms of the aforesaid agreement. Petitioners were appointed as dealer by the Corporation of both Motor Speed (in short 'MS') and High Speed Diesel (in short 'HSD') on the basis of advertisement dated 23.12.2005 in daily newspaper 'Amarujala'. They were appointed as retail outlet dealer. Under Clause II in Column 'E' it was provided that retail outlet was to be developed as a company lease and under this category construction of the petrol pump was to be done by Petitioners and thereafter the land as well as the construction will be given by Petitioners on lease to the Corporation. Under Clause III it was provided that in category 'F' a retail outlet will be developed in which Petitioners will give the land on lease to Corporation and the construction will be made over this land by the Corporation and not by Petitioners. In both conditions, appointment of dealership was not dependent on execution of lease. The Corporation did not made any construction or development over the site where the dealership was allotted to Petitioners. Petitioners have invested about Rs. 45,00,000/-for development of land as well as costs of land. Petitioners have made construction on the site after dealership agreement was executed between Petitioners and the Corporation. There was no clause that retail outlet for selling MS and HSD is dependent on the execution of lease.
(3.) In the company owned retail outlet, lease is executed by the owner of the land in favor of Corporation and Corporation appoints dealer. In respect of the company lease, construction of site for establishing petrol pump is done by the dealer and lease is executed by the dealer in favor of Company but they are totally independent aspects. Thirdly, in respect of dealer owned category, there is no lease executed by the owner of the land in favor of company and it is the dealer who has to construct infrastructure of the petrol pump. In view of aforesaid fact, three categories, company supplies dispenser unit and storage tank only, which has also been done in the present case. The company has treated Petitioners in the third category namely dealer operated out let in which there is no requirement of execution of any lease deed. Petitioners have complied all conditions and agreement also is in the same nature. In this condition, dealership agreement was executed between Petitioners and Corporation on 17.11.2006 omitting the clause of execution of lease. An agreement was sent on behalf of Corporation authorities to Petitioner No. 2 in order to sign the same and sent it back to the Corporation in order to complete the formalities. Supplies of MS and HSD was also started on 31.12.2006 and un-interrupted supply was given. However, they started interfering in the supply without any order in writing being given to Petitioners as such the aforesaid act of Corporation is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice as before stopping supply to Petitioners, they have not issued any show cause notice or given any reply what is the reason. The Chief Regional Manager of the Corporation is the competent authority to issue show cause notice or any order canceling dealership license agreement or suspending the supply. No such order for suspending supply or any show cause notice for canceling Petitioners' dealership has been given to Petitioners by competent authority. Under the dealer owned retail outlet, no lease is required to be executed between the Company and the owner of the land. Retail outlet of Petitioners is dealer owned retail outlet and there is no requirement of execution of any lease either in the agreement or in any other legal document. Petitioners have invested huge amount. This clearly demonstrates that retail outlet of Petitioners is dealer owned retail outlet. Various others petrol pumps like such, they are being supplied goods but till date no lease deed has been executed by the owner of the land over which these retail outlets are situated in favor of Corporation. Petitioners moved an application dated 10.3.2008 under the right of Information Act demanding specifically information regarding three categories. Reply of the aforesaid application was given and it was admitted that the administrative decision can be taken for changing dealer owned retail outlet to Company owned retail outlet and vice-a-versa. Corporation being competent to change the category. Petitioners have been dealer owned retail outlet, which was agreed by means of agreement in which it has not been mentioned that land and super-structure are being taken on lease. Due to stoppage of supply and due to huge investment, Petitioners were suffering great loss though Corporation was not suffering any loss on account of non-running of petrol pump, therefore, Petitioners filed a Suit No. 254 of 2009 restraining Defendant from interfering in supply of the goods. Notice was served to Defendant then an order was passed by the trial court. Instead of complying the order, an appeal was filed against the said order and appeal was allowed by order dated 20.11.2009.;