Karnataka High Court
C Muniraju vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 25 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.1571/2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
C. MUNIRAJU
PROPRIETOR OF C. MUNIRAJU TRANSPORT,
OFFICE AT MANOJ SERVICE STATION,
DEVALAPURA,
DEVANAGONTHI MAIN ROAD,
C. MUNIRAJU
S/O. CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT DODDADUNNASANDRA,
DEVANGOTHI POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE - 560 067. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., AND
SRI M.S. BYRE REDDY, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE),
REGISTERED OFFICE:
17, JAMSEHDJI TATA ROAD,
MUMBAI - 400 020.
BRANCH OFFICE AT
BENGALURU TERMINAL,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
DEVANAGONTHI,
BENGALURU - 560 067.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER/
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.
-2-
2. THE PROPRIETOR,
ONE STOP SERVICE STATION,
DEALERS IN HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD.,
B.M. ROAD, MAYAGANAHALLI,
SUGGANAHALLI POST,
RAMANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 128. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 02.01.2018
BEARING NO.UBM/OPS, i.e. ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 18/11/2022 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this petition has called in question the communication/demand notice dated 02/01/2018 bearing No.UBM/OPS issued by the 1st respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) whereby the tank truck ('TT' for short) bearing No.KA- 53-A-6976 was blacklisted for two years from 28.12.2017 and penalty of Rs.3.00 lakhs was imposed -3- and a writ of mandamus is sought directing the 1st respondent-Corporation to pay compensation of Rs.5,84,000/- towards the loss incurred by the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent-Corporation for transportation of petroleum products from particular loading location to the companies retails outlets/consumer/other shortage outlets and accordingly, an agreement was executed called as Bulk Petroleum Products Road Transport Agreement ('Transport Agreement' for short) on 19.05.2015 as per Annexure-B and consequent to the agreement the 1st respondent- Corporation issued "Oil Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines (Version 4.0)" ('ITDG' for short) which was duly signed by both the parties. According to the petitioner a show-cause notice was issued on 03/10/2017 stating that there has been violation of -4- Clause Nos.8.2.2.2(b), 8.2.2.3, 8.2.2.10 8.2.2.11 of ITDG under the provisions of Transport Agreement read with Clauses of Oil Transport Discipline Guidelines (Version 4.0). By way of show-cause notice the petitioner was called upon to explain the reason for irregularities observed in TT No.KA-53-A- 6976 and to show cause as to why the necessary action should not be initiated against the petitioner for violation of Clauses mentioned under the provision of Bulk Petroleum Products Road Transport Agreement read with ITDG.
3. The petitioner filed its reply stating that the allegations as mentioned in the show-cause notice is not justified and any shortage of 111 liters of diesel, the petitioner is not responsible as the shortage has been found in the underground tank. Ultimately, the 1st respondent-Corporation passed an order and issued communication/demand notice dated 02.01.2018 holding that there is clear violation in line -5- of the ITDG provisions Clause No.8.2.2 of the petitioner's TT No.KA-53-A-6976 and blacklisted for a period of two years from 28.12.2017 to 27.12.2019 and also levied penalty of Rs.3.00 lakhs on the petitioner being the second instance of blacklisting and directed the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.3.00 lakhs immediately.
4. Aggrieved by the order of communication/demand notice dated 02.01.2018, the petitioner has approached this Court. The 1st respondent-Corporation raised preliminary objections while filing its objections stating that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Arbitration Clause in the Transport Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent-Corporation and as such, would contend that the same could be invoked by the petitioner for resolving the dispute. It is the contention of the Corporation in its statement of objections that the action taken against the petitioner -6- is justified in light of the various violation of clauses of the agreement executed between the parties.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at lis and perused the writ petition papers.
6. Sri. Vijayshankar Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show-cause notice issued by the 1st respondent-Corporation and the allegations leveled against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent and stating several irregularities, is without any justification and without conducting inspection as prescribed under the procedure to investigate the matter. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the communication/demand notice blacklisting the petitioner's TT for a period of two years and also levying the penalty is illegal, detrimental and not sustainable.
-7-
7. Per contra, Sri. B. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent-Corporation would submit that as per Clause No.4 of the Transport Agreement executed between the petitioner and the 1st respondent-Corporation provides that all dispute and differences between the parties shall be referred for adjudication to the sole arbitrator. The relevant portion of Clause No.4 as under:
"All disputes and differences of whatsoever nature, whether existing or which shall at any time arise between the Parties hereto touching or concerning the agreement, meaning, operation or effect thereof or to the rights and liabilities of the Parties or arising out of or in relation thereto whether during or after completion of the contract or whether before after determination, foreclosure, termination or breach of the agreement (other than those in respect of which the decision of any person is, by the contract, expressed to be final and binding) shall, after written notice by either Party to the agreement to the other of them and to the Appointing Authority hereinafter -8- mentioned, be referred for adjudication to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed as hereinafter provided."
8. Learned counsel would submit that in view of Clause No.4 stated supra which contains an arbitration clause, the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
9. There is substantial force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent- Corporation since there is an arbitration clause in the Transport Agreement executed between the parties, and there being disputed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that it cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
10. For the reasons stated supra, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is dismissed.-9-
ii. Petitioner is at liberty to invoke the Arbitration Clause as mentioned in the Transport Agreement entered into between the parties.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE MBM