- (1.) THE petitioner No. 1, M/s Kamla Nagar Service Station, in this writ petition, is a registered partnership firm in which petitioners No. 2 and 3 are partners. The firm is a retail dealer of respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short BPCL). The petitioners were running retail outlet of the respondent-BPCL under the name and style of petitioner No. 1. The firm was ultimately ordered to be reconstituted and the BPCL has to allow the reconstituted firm to run the outlet. The reconstituted firm is at present form running the retail outlet. The petitioners have entered into dealership agreement dated 4th October, 1993 with the respondents. The petitioners thereafter alleged malafides against the respondent-BPCL and its officers and officials. Ultimately on 24th December, 2005 the petitioners were served with a show, cause notice, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, wherein the petitioners have been asked to submit reply to the show cause notice in the following terms : "The past irregularities referred above were sufficient to terminate dealer­ship but we had allowed you to continue with a view that you will not commit any irregularities in future. From the above, it is clear that you have failed in the performance of your obligations under the aforesaid agreement entered between us thereby caus­ing inter-alia, a breach of trust. We take an extreme serious view of the aforesaid breaches committed by you and in the circumstances referred above, you are therefore directed to show cause within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of this letter as to why action should not be taken against you including termination of the dealership, failing which we shall be constrained to assume that you have no explanation/justification to offer and we shall be at liberty to take action as deemed fit. Pending your explanation and to review the matter thereafter, we hereby de-certify your dealership from 'Pure for sure'."
(2.) THE petitioners preferred a writ petition against the order-cum-show cause notice dated 24th December, 2005 being Writ Petition No. 14512 of 2006 before this Court. This Court was pleased to pass interim order on 29th March, 2006. Thereafter this writ petition was finally disposed off by this Court on 3rd April, 2007. The order passed by this Court is quoted below: "...............We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date or certified copy of this order is filed before the said authority. It goes without saying that Clause -15 of the agreement entered between the parties, even though, it stipulates that upon revocation or termination of licence, the licensee shall cease to have any rights, whatsoever, to enter or remain in the premises or to use the said fixtures etc. etc., but the said clause can be invoked only in accordance with law and the Corporation cannot take law in its own hands as held by the Apex Court in the case of Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and others, in Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2007 decided on 26th February, 2007 wherein the Apex Court was dealing with the case of a Bank engaging the service of recovery/collection Agents for recovery of the amount of outstanding loan for purchase of a truck. Further the aforesaid clause shall come into play only after revocation or termination of the licence and not at any stage prior to it. The interim order, if any, stands discharged." The petitioners submitted its reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 24th December, 2005 on 29th March, 2006 denying therein all the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the order-cum-show cause notice, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The petitioners further compLalned in the writ petition that respondents are bent upon to harm and harass the petitioners and they did not bother about the order passed by this Court in the writ petition referred to above. Petitioners' further allegation is that when the respondents could not succeed in their device, they got issued a notice to the petitioners from Explosive Safety Organization alleging certain irregularities in the Petrol Pump of the petitioners and the said notice was got issued by the respondents in their own name without any copy of it being furnished on the petitioners. The petitioners further submitted that respondent-BPCL has not given any reply to the notice issued nor they have forwarded it to the petitioners so that the petitioners may file reply. The Explosive Department passed an order dated 31 st July, 2007 purporting to suspend retail outlet owned and run by the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of the Explosive Department dated 17th August, 2007 by means of Writ Petition No. 45380 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21st September, 2007 directing the Explosive Department to take final decision in the matter within two weeks. The order passed by this Court dated 21st September, 2007 is reproduced below: "................Petitioners are aggrieved by an order passed by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Madhyanchal, Agra dated 31st July, 2007, whereby the no objection granted in favour of oil company namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, which permits the petitioners to carry on the business of retail outlet, has been placed under suspension as also against the consequential order of the District Supply Officer, Agra dated 17th Au­gust, 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that till date no charge-sheet, on the basis whereof such order of suspension has been passed, has been served. It is alleged that the order of suspension is based on incorrect facts and the petitioners are being penalized for no fault of their. Sri Prakash Padia, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Sri R. B. Tewari, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submit that against the order of suspension, the petitioners have alternative remedy by way of appeal under Rule 154 of the Petroleum Rules. However, it is admitted to the parties that till date necessary charge-sheet has not been served upon the petitioner nor the proceedings after sus­pension of the licence have been brought to their logical end. In the aforesaid factual situation, we are of the opinion that interest of substantial justice would be served if respondent No. 2 is required to serve the charge-sheet upon the petitioners/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. qua the allegations on which order of suspension has been passed, within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Peti­tioner will be at liberty to submit a reply thereto within two weeks from the date of receiving of charge-sheet. The reply so filed shall be considered and final orders passed in accordance with law by respondent No. 2 preferably within two weeks thereafter. With the aforesaid observations/directions the present writ petition is disposed of finally."
(3.) IN the meantime, due to suspension order of Explosive Department, supply of petroleum products to the petitioners has been stopped by the respondent. The petitioner made several representation to ensure delivery of petroleum products to the petitioners so that it may carry on its business and has deposited necessary money for this purpose. The respondent did not restore supply without there being any order for stopping the same which compelled the petitioner to file Writ Petition No. 53792 of 2007 before this Court. This writ petition is still pending before this Court. The respondents have now passed the impugned order dated 15th December, 2007, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ petition inter alia on the main ground apart from others that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.;