- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. K. Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. P. Kohli, Advocate for re spondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Manoj Tewari, Advocate for re spondent No. 4. They are heard.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14/15-3-2005 passed by respondent no. 1 by which petitioners dealership/distributorship of Indane Gas Services i. e. liquefied petro leum gas domestic and commer cial has been terminated. ii. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus command ing the respondents not to cause any interference in petitioners' dealership/distributorship of Indane Gas services i. e. liquefied petroleum gas domestic and commercial. iii. any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. iv. Award the cost of petition to the petitioner. " The petitioner is challenging the termination of his distributorship vide order dated 14-03-2005 (Annexure 10 ). The petitioner's challenge is founded on the grounds: (i) that Som Dutt, who delivered the cylinders, which on verification were found underweight, to re spondent No. 4 Smt. Brij Rani, was not in the petitioner's serv ice on 26-06-2004, the date of delivery of the cylinders; (ii) that the cylinders delivered by Som Dutt to respondent No. 4 Smt. Brij Rani were not issued from the petitioner's agency; and (iii) that the two earlier incidents of default on the part of the peti tioner were the result of con spiracy by respondent No, 4 Smt. Brij Rani. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 Senior Area Manager, L. P. G. , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Marketing Division, Bareilly, the above factual averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition have been seriously disputed. According to the counter affidavit, those cylinders were issued from the petitioner's agency and Som Dutt was very much in the peti tioner's service on the date of the de livery as was admitted by Som Dutt himself in his statement recorded by the Deputy Manager of Indian Oil Corpo ration.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Smt. Brij Rani has also filed a counter affidavit disput ing the factual averments made in the writ petition. In her counter affidavit, she has categorically stated that the cyl inders were delivered by Som Dutt, who was the deliveryman of the peti tioner's agency. From the pleadings of the par ties, it is apparent that the matter in volves above-mentioned serious dis puted questions of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Duncan Industries Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India re ported in (2006) 3 SCC 129.;