B.P. SHARMA & CO. Vs. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD
LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-181
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 14,2009

B.P. Sharma And Co. Appellant
VERSUS
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions raising common question of facts and law having been heard together are being disposed of by this common order. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in all the writ petitions. It is sufficient to refer pleadings of writ petition No. 32164 of 2009, which is treated as leading case for disposing of all the writ petitions.
(2.) BY these writ petitions, prayer has been made to quash the identical orders dated 24-6-2009, issued by Territory Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Varanasi asking the petitioner to close their business w.e.f. 30-6-2009 by terminating the ad hoc licence from the aforesaid date. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petitions are; the petitioner of writ petition No. 32164 of 2009 by an order dated 12-1-2005 was appointed as ad hoc dealer for retail outlet at Turra, Pipari, Sonbhadra for carrying out business of Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel and Lubricants by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The order dated 12-1-2005 contemplated that, corporation was in process of finalising regular dealership for carrying out the business from the aforesaid location and pending final decision, the petitioner was appointed directly on temporary, basis to run the outlet initially, the dealership was granted to the petitioner for a period of one year i.e. up to 12-1-2006 with stipulation that if the petitioner was interested to carry on business even after expiry of the aforesaid date, the formal application had to be made to the company for the said purpose. After having been appointed as ad hoc dealer, the petitioner also obtained licence under U.P. High Speed Diesel and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981, which is renewed up to 31-3-2011. The petitioner was allowed to continue as ad hoc dealer even after 12-1-2006 and continued as such till the impugned order dated 24-6-2009 was passed terminating the ad hoc licence w.e.f. 30-6-2009 and directing the petitioner to close its business. The petitioner in this writ petition has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 24-6-2009 and further seeks a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioner to continue it as ad hoc dealer as per existing terms and conditions.
(3.) IN the impugned order dated 24-6-2009, two reasons have been given for termination of ad hoc licence; firstly the petitioner has been working as a regular dealer at the retail petroleum outlet situated at Murdvan district Sonbhadra vide selling licence dated 29-3-1972 and secondly, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited has made arrangement for appointing a regular dealership/Licencee to sell BPCL's products at Turra District Sonbhadra. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Corporation stating therein that petitioner's appointment as ad hoc dealer was only a temporary appointment which is akin to temporary appointment of a Government servant. It is stated that the petitioner has no right being a temporary appointee in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others, reported in 2006(2) S.C.T. 462 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : AIR 2006 SC 1806. It is further submitted that writ petition in respect of contractual matter is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the cases of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Ghulam Mohd. Dar and another reported in 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 284 : (2004) 12 SCC 327 : AIR 2004 SC 510; Verigamto Naveen v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 344 : AIR 2001 SC 3609, Kerala State Electricity Board and another v. Kurien E. Kalathil and others, reported in 2001(1) S.C.T. 403 : (2000) 6 SCC 293 : AIR 2000 SC 2573 and Bareilly Development Authority and another v. Ajai Pal Singh and others, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 116 : AIR 1989 SC 1076. Another judgment relied by learned counsel for the respondents is in the case of State of U.P. v. Prem Shanker Sharma, reported in 2006 (10) ADJ 123 : 2007 (4) ALJ (DOC) 132.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.