- (1.) MRS. Saroj Bala, J. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make the Extension Point of dealership at Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, permanent. The petitioner also seeks a direction to restrain the respondents from curtailing the operational area of SKD Dealership at Bisrakh.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition broadly stated are as hereunder: THE petitioner's firm M/s. Bulaki Dass Vinod Kumar, Mohan Nagar, District Bulandshahar had dealership of SKO/ldo in the Union Territory of Delhi with its Headquarters at Anaj Mandi, Sahadara. By virtue of a letter dated February 14, 1979, the petitioner was granted permission by the Indian Oil Corporation to market SKO/ldo at Mohan Nagar as an outstation of their main Agency at Sahadara. In the year 1997- 1998 a new District Gautam Budh Nagar was carved out of the parent Districts Bulandshahar & Ghaziabad. THE operational area of the petitioner at Mohan Nagar was affected due to the creation of the new District. A request for Extention Point at Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar made by the petitioner, was accepted and approved vide letter dated February 5, 1998 for a period of one year (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). THE petitioner was advised to select a suitable site and to obtain licence for marketing SKO at Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar. THE petitioner applied for and licence was granted by the District Supply Officer for the Extension Point at Bisrakh (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). THE petitioner installed an underground storage tank and a filling pump in pursuance of the Government Order and in compliance of letter dated 17-11-1998 of District Supply Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). According to the petitioner he was given to understand that the Extension point at Bisrakh would be made permanent in due course of time and there will be no curtailment in the operational area. The period of dealership of petitioner at Bisrakh was extended from time to time uptil 30-4-2001 by means of letters dated 2-8-1999, 23-8-2000, 4-8-2000 and 1-3-2001 respectively (Annexures 6, 7, 8 and 9 to the writ petition ). According to the petitioner in the month of April, 1999, 17 retailers of Bisrakh Block had lifted 60,300 litre of SKO from Bisrakh Extension Point. On 18-9- 2000, the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar made a request through letter (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) to the Principal Secretary for directing the Indian Oil Corporation to regularise the Extension Point situated in Gautam Budh Nagar. A similar request was made by the District Supply Officer to the Chief Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Agra vide letter dated 31-1-2000 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition ). On 23-8-2000 an advertisement was made by the Indian Oil Corporation in Hindustan Times and other newspapers inviting applications of dealership at Noida and Gautam Budh Nagar. The terms and conditions of advertisement precluded the petitioner from making an application for new dealership as he was already functioning within that area. According to the petitioner permanent dealership at Dhankaur Extention Point has been granted by the Indian Oil Corporation to Ramanand. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited has granted permission to M/s. Ghaziabad Oil Traders, Ghaziabad for permanent Extension Point at Gautam Budh Nagar, taking into consideration the aspect that the said firm was supplying SKO in that area, since long. The contention of the petitioner is that area falling within Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad presently forms part of District Gautam Budh Nagar, therefore, the act of respondents amounts of curtailment of petitioner's operational area. According to the petitioner he has invested a huge amount of more than Rs. 15 lacs for installation of Extension Point at Bisrakh and obtaining licence. The contention of the petitioner is that he having not violated any terms and conditions of the licence or the provisions of the Control Order, the curtailment of the operational area is against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. According to the petitioner no opportunity of hearing having been granted, the action of the respondents is against law and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE counter-affidavit of Alok Kumar, Deputy Manager (CONS) of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. THE contention of the respondents is that permission of installation of Extension Point was granted, as the respondents could not finalise the process to select eligible candidate through Dealer Selection Board as per the guidelines and norms laid down by the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. According to the respondents the grant of Extension Counter being for a limited period, no legal rights have accrued to the petitioner. THE respondents have stated that the petitioner cannot continue after the selection of a regular dealer by the Dealer Selection Board to operate in the extended territory. THE contention of the respondents is that extension in respect of certain area was granted purely on temporary basis in order to meet the immediate demand of the people living in that area. According to the respondents in relation to entire location of SKO/ldo dealership at Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, selection process is over and Shri Ashok Kumar has been selected and letter of intent and letter of appointment have been issued on 2-5- 01 and 25-6-01 respectively (Annexure-CA 1 & 2 ). THE respondents have stated that there is no dispute about the original area allocated to the petitioner. THE respondents have stated that the licence granted to the petitioner being for a limited period and dealership in relation to the area in question having been finalised, the petitioner's claim to operate in the extended area is baseless. THE contention of the respondent is that the licence of the petitioner having not been renewed after 30-4-01, he cannot continue business at the Extension Point. About grant of permanent dealership to Ramnath Ramanand, it is stated that the said firm had no temporary Extension Point. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the consolidated fee of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by him and the Licensing Authority having accepted the fee, the renewal was for all times till the licence was suspended or cancelled. According to the petitioner the licence is granted and renewed by the District Supply Officer under Clauses 6 & 8 of the Control Order, 1962 and the licence fee payable is prescribed under clause 10 of the said Control Order. The licence under the Control Order is extended from time to time, after the extension of the period of Extension Point by the Indian Oil Corporation. The licence under the Control Order would be continued by the District Supply Officer, if the Indian Oil Corporation permits its dealer to operate from the Extension Point after creation of a new district.;