- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 11th May, 2010 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge whereby His Lordship was pleased to hold as follows:- Having taken the fullest advantage of the unequal bargaining position of the partnership firm, HPCL merely relied on the expiry of the dealership agreement for snapping the relationship of HPCL with the firm without adjudicating the merits of the case of HPCL against the firm, the third respondent has filed to consider this factor as well. HPCL, in my opinion, in order to refuse the prayer for renewal of the dealership agreement or for entering into a fresh agreement has taken an absolutely vindictive approach and such approach should be and is held as arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair approach on its part to refuse the petitioner or rater the firm an opportunity of renewal or extension of the dealership agreement between the firm and HPCL. HPCL being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot be permitted to act in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution in order to snap the relationship with the firm. HPCL as an authority cannot also be permitted to act as a private individual in determining the dealership agreement in question or in not renewing or making a fresh agreement with the firm. Finally, as I have said above, the third respondent instead of adjudicating the proceedings before him on merits has thought it prudent to merely set out HPCL's allegations contained in its said show-cause and the HPCL said letter dated 19 November 1997, by which HPCL expressed its inability to renew the agreement, in support of his conclusion that since there was no existence of contractual relationship between the petitioners and the Corporation "the revival/resumption of supplies to the petitioners' firm is not permissible and possible under the existing rules and policy guidelines of the Corporation". In the name of adjudicating the proceedings, the third respondent, I think, has really acted as an agent of HPCL. Thus the impugned order of the Senior Regional Manager of HPCL dated 29th October 2008 is set aside and as a natural consequence thereof HPCL is directed to either renew or enter into a fresh "dealership agreement" with the partnership firm in question within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. However, the petitioners herein in their turn will submit an affidavit to HPCL within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order stating that they will run the Kerosene Oil Agency as a partnership firm as before on the basis of the above renewed or fresh dealership agreement. If no affidavit is submitted as directed above by the petitioners, HPCL will not be obliged to renew or enter into a fresh "dealership agreement". The writ petition is disposed of. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:- One Sri Dulal Krishna Saha during his lifetime held a licence to act as a superior kerosene oil agent (hereinafter referred to as SKO). He entered into an agreement for obtaining supply of kerosene oil with Esso Std. Eastern Inc. Subsequently, the said Esso Std. Eastern Inc. was taken over by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as HPCL) and as such Sri Dulal Krishna Saha had to enter into a fresh agreement with HPCL on 3rd October, 1975 for receiving supply of superior kerosene oil.
(2.) After his demise, his three sons, Nikhil Kumar Saha, Ashim Kumar Saha and Shyamal Kumar Saha formed a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Dulal Krishna Saha and continued the said business. After the partnership was constituted an agreement was entered into between them and HPCL for obtaining supply of kerosene oil.
(3.) The kerosene oil is distributed under the Public Distribution System (shortly known as P.D.S.) and the said system governs by the West Bengal Superior Kerosene Control Order, 1968 till very recently. They also obtained a licence from the Directorate of Consumer Goods, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal.;