- (1.) This writ petition shall also govern the disposal of connected writ petition Nos. 4782 (MB) of 2009 and 5009 (MB) of 2009 as the cause of action impugned therein is common. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. This writ petition has been filed by a partnership firm consisting of four persons whose land was taken on lease for opening of a retail outlet of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation-opposite party No. 1. The petitioner firm was thereafter alloted ad hoc dealership in respect of the new retail outlet also, apart from the one being run by it. It appears that after the lease of land was executed, the Corporation invested a huge amount of Rs. 60 lacs in advance but failed to get an eligible and suitable dealer. Thus, the petitioner firm was entrusted with this new outlet as additional charge only for the reason that the firm was a permanent dealer of some other outlet of the Corporation and worked to the satisfaction of the Corporation. It also appears that after petitioner firm's land was taken on lease by the Corporation vide lease agreement dated 17.1.2004, an ad hoc dealership of the new outlet opened on its land was also given to it on 12.2.2004. The petitioner firm was allowed to run the outlet upto 18.5.2009. say over five years, when the impugned order of cancellation of ad hoc dealership was passed by the Territory Manager, Gorakhpur (opposite party No. 3), without there being any complaint and without issuing a show cause notice. It is this order which has been called in question in these writ proceedings.
(2.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent corporation brought to our notice a judgment passed by a Division Bench at Allahabad in M/s. B. P. Sharma and Company v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and another., 2009 5 AllLJ 525, so as to contend that ad hoc dealerships are given only as an interim arrangement till a regular dealer is appointed and the ad hoc dealer, thus, has no right to claim grant of regular dealership.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner firm while refuting the preemptive contention of learned counsel for respondent corporation submitted that the judgment under reference would, not apply in the Instant case for the reason that in the said judgment the petitioner ad hoc dealer had prayed for continuance of ad hoc dealership only and had not sought the relief for making it regular/permanent. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner firm referred to a brochure of the respondent corporation dated 1.11.2004 (Annexure-11) with particular reference to paragraph 2, which deals with the mode of selection of dealers. Learned counsel took us to sub-para 2 (b) to argue that the land owners whose lands have been taken on lease can be granted dealership, if otherwise found to be suitable. It is also a contention of learned counsel that the status of petitioner firm was not that of an ad hoc dealer and simply because there was an advertisement for allotment of ad hoc dealership it should not be denied the right to claim a regular dealership, in view of its continuing for over 5 years as such to the satisfaction of the Corporation and if the firm is otherwise found to be suitable and eligible for the grant of regular dealership.;