- (1.) IN this case, a simple question arises as to whether on the appointment of an agent, as defined in Para 2 (a) of U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962, as amended from time to time, the appointment of the petitioner as Distributor, as defined in Para 2 (aa) of the said Order automatically comes to an end by reason of Condition No. 2 contained in the Government Order No. 1646/29-7-33 (KO)-1990 dated, 19th May, 1990.
(2.) IN fact by an order dated 6th April, 1993, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Admin.) Azamgarh which is Annexure '7' to the writ petition, the petitioner has been informed that in view of Condition No. 2 contained in Q. O. No. 1646, dated 19th May, 1990 aforesaid, on the appoint ment of M/s. Janki Petroleum, Proprietor Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh, the appointment of the petitioner has come to an end. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has claimed that before terminating his appointment by virtue of Annexure 't to the writ petition, neither notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the peti tioner by the respondents. The Kerosene Control Order, 1962 was amended by U. P. Kerosene Control (13th Amendment) Order, 1990 published in Notification No. 1367/xxix-7-88- (KO)-89-CA- 10/1955-O-1962-AM-13-1990, dated May 10, 1990 whereby definition of 'agent' as contained in Para 2 (a) was amended while definition of "distributor' in Para 2 (aa) was added along with insertion of Para 6 (ii-A) (iv ). The petitioner was granted licence on 10th August, 1990 under the said Control Order, as amended by 13th (Amendment) Order, 1990. Such licence was being from time to time. In the meantime, U. P. Kerosene Control (14th Amend ment) Order, 1994 was promulgated in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Order dated 30th November 197, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act by the State of U. P. By the (14th, Amendment) Order, 1994, one time licensing system has been introduced and necessary amendment in the said Kerosene Control Order, 1962 was introduced. According to the petitioner, he having applied for one time licence in December 1994 after the said (14th Amendment) Order, 1994 came into being, the authorities accordingly granted him one time licence on 1st December, 1994 under the said Kerosene Control Order, 1962, as amended by (14th Amendment) Order of 1994. According to the petitioner, in the circumstances, his licence cannot be treated to have come to an end by reason of Condition No. 2 contained in the. said G. O. No. 1646, dated 19th May, 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits further that the said Condition No. 2 is ultra vires to the provisions contained in Kerosene Control Order, 1962, as amended from time to time and, therefore, cannot be sustain ed and is liable to struck down. The said Rajendra Kumar Singh, Proprietor, Janki Petroleum who was appointed Agent was added as respondent No. 5 in the writ petition by the petitioner. In his counter-affidavit, respondent No. 5 contends that on account of his appointment as agent on 4th April, 1995 there would be a con flict of interest in the area of operation and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot continue particularly in view of Condition No. 2 contained in the said G. O. No. 1646, dated 19th May, 1990. His appointment was subject to the said Condition No. 2 and, therefore, in the event of supervening appointment of an Agent, the appointment of the petitioner as Block Distri butor comes to an end.
(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has disputed the area of operation of respondent No. 5. According to him, respondent No. 5 was appointed Agent in respect of Tehsil Budhanpur which comprises 3 Blocks Koilsa, Atraulia and Ahraula. It was pointed out in the rejoinder affidavit that from Annexure 'ca-1', it appears that respondent No. 5 was allotted 2 kilo litres of kerosene oil for distribution at Ahraula Block authorising him separately the agency for distribution of Kerosene Oil at Ahraula Block. Whereas from letters issued by the Oil Company which are Annexures 'ra-1' and 'ra-2', it appears that respondent No. 5 was given Agency by the Oil Company for distribution of 10 kilo litres of kerosene in Ahraula Block. Whereas the petitioner is operating at Koilsa Blcck. We have heard learned counsel Mr. V. K. Shukla, for the petitioner and Mr. J. J. Muneer for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State. No counter affidavit, however, was filed on behalf of the State respondents.;