Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Jayshree Filling Station vs H P C L And Ors on 28 August, 2017
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1192 / 2017
M/s Jayshree Filling Station (HPCL Dealer), Bhilwara Road (NH
79), Bandanwara, District Ajmer Through Its Sole Proprietor -
Surendra Singh Son of Late Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 67
Years
----Appellant
Versus
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Its
Chairman, Registered Office, 17- Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-
400020.
2. The General Manager (Retail), North Western Zone (NWZ),
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, First Floor, Shri Balaji
Alfa Bazaar, Opp. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, High Street - 1, Law
Garden, Ahmedabad - 380 006.
3. Senior Regional Manger (Retail), Kota Retail Region, 3-A-5,
Rangbari Main Road, Talwani, Kota.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Saksena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sukriti Kasliwal, Adv. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 28/08/2017 Instant appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dt.18.07.2017.
The appellant has primarily challenged the order dt.04.07.2017, whereby, retail outlet dealership agreement of the petitioner-firm was terminated by the authorities because of the alleged critical irregularities amongst other irregularities being noticed on a random inspection of its unit.
Counsel submits that although a preliminary objection was (2 of 4) [SAW-1192/2017] raised by the respondent in the reply that in case of order passed by the authorities indicating critical irregularities, & consequential termination of dealdership the dealer has an opportunity to file appeal under para 8.9 of the guidelines issued by the oil companies for Marketing Discipline for RO/SKO Dealerships of Public Sector Marketing Companies, effective from 08.01.2013, which reads ad infra:-
"8.9 Appellate Proceedings:
1. In case of orders in critical irregularities, the dealer will have the right to appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order, before the appropriate authority who will be empowered to decide the matter and the appeal shall be disposed off preferably within 90 days from the date of filling the appeal in the office of the appellate authority. During this period also, the RO will be kept open if the sales and supplies were not suspended earlier.
2. For all appeals in case of critical irregularities, except termination in case of SC/ST dealerships, the appellate authority will be the ED (Retail) in the Head Quarters or any other ED level officer at the Head Quarter so nominated by the company. For all cases of termination of SC/ST dealerships, the appellate authority will be a Director other than Director (Mktg.) of the OMC."
Counsel on instructions wants to withdraw that petition with opportunity to avail the remedy of appeal provided under the aforesaid guidelines of 2013.
Counsel further submits that since the limitation in filing the appeal is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and the period has expired during pendency of the proceedings and this (3 of 4) [SAW-1192/2017] being a technical matter what is being observed by the ld. Single Judge may not at least come in his way on appeal being preferred by him.
Counsel for respondent has an objection to the extent that once the matter has been appreciated by the ld. Single Judge there appears no justification available with the appellant, at this stage to request for withdrawal of the petition and avail the alternative remedy of appeal moreso when the period of limitation has already expired.
We have heard counsel for the parties & we too are of the view that this being a technical matter & arriving to the conclusion as to what kind of the critical irregularities are being committed by the retail outlet dealer, can be better appreciated by the technical persons and if there is any apparent error in the decision making process adopted by the respondent or non compliance of the procedure prescribed or action being in violation of the principles of natural justice certainly it may be adjudicated in the limited scope of judicial review by this court under Art.226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, we consider it appropriate to grant indulgence to the appellant, as prayed for & we are of the view that the observations made by the ld. Single Judge while passing the order impugned dt.18.07.2017 may not influence/inhibit the appellate authority, if the appeal is preferred against the order of termination dt.04.07.2017.
Consequently, the request made by counsel for the appellant for withdrawal of the petition no. 10660/2017 is allowed & in (4 of 4) [SAW-1192/2017] consequence thereof order passed by the ld. Single Judge dt.18.07.2017 is hereby quash and set aside with liberty to the appellant to prefer appeal in terms of the para 8.9 of the guidelines issued of the Marketing Discipline for RO/SKO Dealerships of Public Sector Marketing Companies, 2013. If such appeal being preferred by the appellant within 30 days from today, it shall be treated within the period of limitation and it is expected from the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal independently in accordance with law without being influenced/inhibited by the observations made by the ld. Single Judge under order impugned dt.18.07.2017.
In above terms, the instant special appeal stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. A.Kumar/R.Vaishnav 19