- (1.) The petitioners challenge the order issued on 09.12.2013 (Annexure P-16) rejecting the plea for restructuring of the dealership after death of some partners. The original Kerosene/LDO dealership agreement had been entered on 13.02.1974 by the Indian Oil Corporation with the partnership firm carrying on business under the name of M/s. Dayaloo Mal Gian Chand at Pathankot. M/s. Day-aloo Mal Gian Chand consisted of Dayaloo Mal Gian Chand and his three sons, namely, Subhash Puri, Avinash Puri and Sudhir Puri. Gian Chand Puri and Subhash Puri died first. Petitioner No. 2, namely Paras Puri is the son of Sudhir Puri. It appears that before the request for restructuring the dealership, the area of dealership at Pathankot extension dealership had been given for the place at Kangra also. The petitioner has applied for restructuring the dealership and seeking for the dealership to be issued in his name after the death of his father, for the extension counter at Kangra, and retention of the dealership at Pathankot in the name of his uncle Avinash. The objection is that the Cooperation has the power, at its discretion to increase or decrease area and now through the decision taken, it has decreased the area of dealership by withdrawal the extension granted at Kangra. The counsel for the Corporation would submit that the petitioner is not a party to the agreement at that time and a plea for reconstructing done at his instance and for grant of dealership in his name would be against the guidelines. The dealership at Kangra was only an extension for the dealership at Pathankot and that cannot be bifurcated as dealership for one at Pathankot and another at Kangra. The counsel also states that since the petitioner is claiming a dealership for Kangra, the jurisdiction shall decide only with the office at Kangra in Himachal Pradesh and the writ petition itself is without jurisdiction.
(2.) There is no doubt that the original agreement had been among the petitioner's grand-father, his father and the paternal uncles who had constituted themselves as a partnership. There is a again no dispute that the dealership originally granted for the place at Pathankot still continues and the extension was awarded in terms of what was permissible. The regulations of the corporation provide that on the death of any partner or any reconstructing of the partnership which has secured the dealership shall be done with the concurrence of the corporation. The petitioner has under the belief that reconstructing could extend as far as to bifurcate the dealership awarded for one place with extension as dealership for two different places. Evidently, according to the respondent-Corporation such a manner of bifurcation is not possible.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 explains that when the agreement was originally executed on 13.02.1974 with reference to confirmation of dealership to M/s. Dayaloo Mal Gian Chand the place described was Pathankot Municipal limits. The dealership was not also in respect of facilities in Kangra District. It was extended as an additional point subsequently through a letter dated 20.12.1976 (Annexure P-3). The said letter specifically refers to the fact that the dealership area was since then open for Pathankot, Tehsil Kangra & Chamba Distt. of H.P. And Mukerian, Talwara only.;