- (1.) Seeking quashing of termination of Dealership Agreement dated 28.2.2013, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner was allotted a Retail Outlet Dealership in the year, 2004 on National Highway No. 2(NH-2) and he started the outlet in the name of M/s. Sinha Service Station. By letter dated 20.2.2013, the Retail Outlet Dealership awarded to the petitioner has been cancelled, in view of Clause 9 to the Dealership Agreement.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no notice in terms of Clause 9 has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and therefore, the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation would not have terminated the Retail Outlet Dealership only on the basis of the written reply of the petitioner.
(3.) Mr. Amar Nath Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation refers to Clause 69 of the Dealership Agreement and submits that even the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner was required to approach Director (Marketing) of the Indian Oil Corporation in the event of any dispute. It is further submitted that vide various letters starting from 7.4.2008 to 4.8.2012, the petitioner was directed to improve the performance of the retail outlet and though, he gave assurances, he could not improve the performance of the retail outlet and therefore, respondent-Indian Oil Corporation was constrained to terminate the Retail Outlet Dealership awarded to the petitioner.;