- (1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 09.09.2008 whereby appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant was allowed.
(2.) AFORESAID appeal was filed against the order passed by the Civil Judge on 17.07.2006 granting injunction in favour of the petitioners. By the appellate order, injunction order has been set aside, hence this writ petition. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioners that vide Annexure ? 1, temporary dealership was awarded in favour of the petitioner. This was with the clear understanding that regular dealership would be given pursuant to the lease of the land made in favour of oil company. Dealership was accordingly, continued beyond the period of one year. The petitioners were quite hopeful that permanent dealership would be awarded in their favour but they were surprised when respondents not only issued advertisement for calling application for appointment of permanent dealer for retail outlet in dispute but even selected a relative of retired employee of the oil company. At this stage, petitioners preferred a suit along with an application for grant of temporary injunction. Learned trial Court considered the conduct of the oil company and taking note of all the aspects, granted injunction in favour of the petitioner. The Appellate Court reversed the order mainly on the ground that temporary dealership was for a period of one year and not extended by the oil company and taking note of the provisions of Section 14(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that ignoring the fact that lease agreement was pursuant to the assurance for grant of regular dealership and for that reason, continuance of dealership beyond the period initially fixed, the Appellate Court passed the order on certain presumptions by making reference of the agreement dated 29.10.2003. By the interim order, petitioner has been continued with the dealership during the pendency of the writ petition, thus while deciding this writ petition, a direction can be given to the trial Court to decide the matter finally a the earliest. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent(s) submits that perusal of Annexure ? 1 i.e. Appointment order dated 29.10.2003 shows that it was granted for specific period till the dealership is finalised. The petitioner was knowing it well that the dealership is only for temporary period of one year and would be alloted finally on the regular basis as per the policy. She was never given assurance for grant of regular dealership rather no such oral assurance is given by the oil company. Even as per policy, one family cannot be alloted more than one dealership. Petitioner's family member is having dealership of L.P.G. Coming to the conduct of the petitioner No.2, it is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement issued for calling applications, she applied for grant of regular dealership. She was interviewed but could not find place at serial No.1 so as to allot regular dealership. It is at that stage, suit was filed to annul the selection. No suit was filed immediately on issuance of advertisement. This clearly shows that petitioner is indirectly challenging the selection and in the garb of the injunction, continued with the dealership. The Appellate Court rightly drawn conclusion in reference to the provisions of Specific Relief Act. Looking to the aforesaid and the fact that even extension of the dealership was for the fixed period, the prayer is to dismiss the writ petition.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused the record of the case, more specifically, the orders passed passed by the Courts below. Perusal of Annexure ? 1 shows that petitioner No.1 was appointed as dealer on temporary basis and specific period of one year though there is a provision of renewal of the dealership on an application made by the petitioner and acceptance by the respondent - oil company. It is not in dispute that temporary dealership was continued beyond the period initially fixed vide the order dated 29.10.2003. It is, however shown that extension was for a fixed period. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners could not show an application for extension of time for dealership, however, the fact remains that respondents have not disputed extension of dealership beyond the initial period, however, it is specified for a fixed period. ;