- (1.) The writ petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s. Vishal Gramin Fuels and his said concern is a retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., an undertaking of Government of India. The respondent authority by Annexure "P- 15" terminated his dealership. Such order of termination is the subject matter of challenge in this writ application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner contended before me that the initiation of the proceeding by itself is bad in law and absolutely vindictive and mala fide. He then drew my attention to Annexure "P-1" and submitted that sale and supply through his petrol pump was stopped by the respondent No. 4 not only without any authority but also without disclosing any reason thereof. He contended that although his dealership has been terminated on the allegation of adulteration and for not maintaining the machineries and equipments in accordance with rule but those allegations are not correct. He further submitted that the remaining allegation of shortage of stock is against the records and actually stock was in excess.
(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent authority first contended that this writ petition is not maintainable because his dealership has not only been terminated according to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines for petrol and diesel outlet framed to meet the growing customers' expectation, ensuring quality of product and service, enforcing stricter discipline amongst the dealership network and preventing mal-practice in the sale of petroleum products, but there is specific provision for appeal against any order of termination of dealership and the same is also the part of the dealership agreement. He further added that in the instant case the issuance of stop sale notice, show cause and the termination of dealership upon adjudication of rival claims was done in accordance of these guidelines and enforceability of the same was never challenged. He further submitted that in the dealership agreement also it has been clearly stipulated that the entire business transactions between the parties shall be governed by the Marketing Discipline Guidelines and it is the specific case of the petitioner that termination of dealership was not in accordance with the Marketing Discipline Guidelines.
(3.) In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question of alternative remedy will not operate as a bar in the instant case because the provisions of such alternative remedy is not provided under any statute and that was only a guideline prescribed by the concerned Ministry.;