- (1.) AS per the facts averred in the writ petition the Indian Oil Corporation (for short IOC) granted dealership for Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) at Achrol to the petitioner. On September 11, 2001 when the inspection of the outlet was conducted it was found in perfect order put Shri Sanjay Bhandari ASsistant Manager (Sales) IOC on October 14, 2001 suddenly appeared at the outlet and demanded money from the attendant and on his refusal communicated false report. Thereafter another inspection was conducted on October 15, 2001 and the punishment of closure of Retail outlet was imposed on the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this action the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court seeking quashing of the order/communication of the IOC dated October 15, 2001 and November 2, 2001 and prayed to allow him to operate the Retail Outlet.
(2.) THE grounds for challenging the action of the respondents are that the respondent IOC has ignored the Marketing Discipline Guide Lines in respect of proposed punishment in case of irregularities committed by the dealers. According to the petitioner his case does not fall in any way so as to be given such penal punishment of closure of the Retail Outlet and that too for almost four months. THEre is no such provision and penalty proposed in the Marketing Guide Lines but the respondent IOC on it's own has initiated such a process malafidely. It is further averred that the act of the IOC is against the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before the aforequoted penal order was passed. It is after the closure of the Retail Outlet that a notice seeking clarification was given to the petitioner. THE petitioner in addition to the quashing of the aforesaid communication also prayed that an enquiry against Sanjay Bhandari should be conducted and the respondents be directed to compensate the petitioner for the loss which has been incurred by him by way of closure of the Retail Outlet. The respondents raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is pleaded by them in the reply that the relationship between the parties is contractual and is governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement therefore the petitioner cannot claim his rights beyond the terms of the agreement. The respondents further pleaded that in view of clause 69 of the agreement the dispute between the parties to the agreement can be resolved solely by way of arbitration. The contractual obligations cannot be enforced by means of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot determine civil disputes as ordinary civil court. The respondents denied the allegations levelled against inspecting officers. The reply has been supported by the affidavit of Sanjeev Yadav, Senior Division Manager IOC. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and scanned the record. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on State of U. P. and others vs. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. (1) and State of Gujrat and others vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and others (2), and canvassed that the principle of audi alteram partem did not apply in private contractual matters. In State of Gujrat and others vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and others (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that if the matter is governed by contract, writ petition is not maintainable since it is a public law remedy and is not available in private law field.
(3.) IN State of U. P. and others vs. Bridge & Roof Company (INdia) Ltd. (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that dispute relating to terms of private contract, proper course would be to reference to arbitration or institution of suit and not writ petition. It may be noticed that cross FIRs. were lodged by and against Shri Sanjay Bhandari, Assistant Manager (Sales) Indian Oil Corporation (respondent No. 4) with the Police Station Chandwaji on October 14, 2001. It is also exfacie established on record that CBI Jaipur submitted charge sheet against Shri Sanjay Bhandari under Sections 120 B readwith Section 420 IPC, 13 (i) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Shri Sanjay Bhandari has been impleaded as party in the writ petition and malafide allegations have been levelled against him. Yet Shri Sanjay Bhandari did not choose to file counter affidavit controverting the facts pleaded in the writ petition. Be that as it may the only point for consideration before this court is as to whether the principle of audi alteram partem does apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. Undeniably the Retail Outlet of the petitioner was closed on October 15, 2001 after Shri Sanjay Bhandari visited the said outlet on October 14, 2001 and before closing the said outlet no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Order of closing the Retail Outlet deprives the petitioner of his right to carry on business and so it imposes a duty on the respondents to act judicially. It follows that the respondents ought to have followed the requirements of natural justice and must have given an opportunity to the petitioner to meet allegations of alleged irregularities committed by him. Imposing penal punishment on the petitioner without such opportunity was an illegal act that violated right to trade of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Even in a private contractual matter if right to trade of a party is affected it is necessary to provide opportunity of hearing to such a party. Taking recourse of arbitration clause is not an efficacious remedy under these circumstances and the ratio of the cases `state of U. P. and others vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd. ' (supra) and `state of Gujarat and others vs. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and others' (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the foregoing discussion, I allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated October 15, 2001 and communication dated November 2, 2001 of the respondents. Consequently the petitioner shall be at liberty to operate the Retail Outlet at Achrol. The other reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted to him under Article 226. The petitioner if he so chooses, may approach the appropriate forum for those reliefs. There shall be no order as to costs. . ;