Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Hazra Filling Station vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors on 17 February, 2012
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
17.02.2012
sm
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P.No.1618(W) of 2012
M/s. Hazra Filling Station
v.
The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.
Mr.Saktinath Mukherjee
Mr.Jayanta Das. .. for the petitioner.
Mr.M.S. Yadav .. for IOCL.
The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January
20, 2012 is questioning a decision of Indian Oil Corporation
Limited (in short IOCL) terminating the dealership agreement.
The agreement has been terminated alleging that the petitioner was
functioning in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It
was alleged that the petitioner had fiddled with sealed DU, and that with an
oblique aim and intention he had reported damage to the DU due to the
accident.
Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner submits as follows. The
decision to terminate the agreement is vitiated by arbitrariness, for the
allegation of tampering was not established, and for the accident the
petitioner was not responsible in any manner whatsoever. He has said that
the petitioner still in possession cannot be deprived of the fuel stock he
purchased and of the pieces of equipment owned by him.
Mr.Yadav appearing for IOCL has submitted that after making
inquiry and giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to deal with the
serious allegations, IOCL rightly took the decision to terminate the
agreement; and that in terms of the agreement IOCL is entitled to take
steps for possession and disposal of the fuel stock and other things in the
2
filling station owned by IOCL. He has said that IOCL has already allotted
the station to a new dealer on an ad hoc basis.
After hearing Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Yadav and considering the
case, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to admit the WP. I do not
think it is a fit case for passing any restraining order. There is arbitration
agreement between the parties and the question of maintainability of the
WP requires a closer examination. The balance of convenience and
inconvenience is against passing of any restraining order.
For these reasons, I admit the WP keeping the question of its
maintainability open and order as follows.
The ad hoc allotment of the filling station by IOCL shall abide by the
result of the WP. Pendency of the WP and operation of this order shall not
prevent the parties from taking steps for possession, disposal of old stock
and pieces of equipment, and also from approaching the Civil Court or any
other Forum. The respondents shall file opposition within four weeks; reply,
if any, shall be filed by a week thereafter. Liberty to mention the WP for final hearing. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) 17.02.2012 sm In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.No.1618(W) of 2012 M/s. Hazra Filling Station 3 v.
The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.
Mr.Saktinath Mukherjee Mr.Jayanta Das. .. for the petitioner. Mr.M.S. Yadav .. for IOCL.
The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January 20, 2012 is questioning a decision of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short IOCL) terminating the dealership agreement.
The agreement has been terminated alleging that the petitioner was functioning in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was alleged that the petitioner had fiddled with sealed DU, and that with an oblique aim and intention he had reported damage to the DU due to the accident.
Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner submits as follows. The decision to terminate the agreement is vitiated by arbitrariness, for the allegation of tampering was not established, and for the accident the petitioner was not responsible in any manner whatsoever. He has said that the petitioner still in possession cannot be deprived of the fuel stock he purchased and of the pieces of equipment owned by him.
Mr.Yadav appearing for IOCL has submitted that after making inquiry and giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to deal with the serious allegations, IOCL rightly took the decision to terminate the agreement; and that in terms of the agreement IOCL is entitled to take steps for possession and disposal of the fuel stock and other things in the filling station owned by IOCL. He has said that IOCL has already allotted the station to a new dealer on an ad hoc basis.
After hearing Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Yadav and considering the case, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to admit the WP. I do not 4 think it is a fit case for passing any restraining order. There is arbitration agreement between the parties and the question of maintainability of the WP requires a closer examination. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is against passing of any restraining order.
For these reasons, I admit the WP keeping the question of its maintainability open and order as follows.
The ad hoc allotment of the filling station by IOCL shall abide by the result of the WP. Pendency of the WP and operation of this order shall not prevent the parties from taking steps for possession, disposal of old stock and pieces of equipment, and also from approaching the Civil Court or any other Forum. The respondents shall file opposition within four weeks; reply, if any, shall be filed by a week thereafter. Liberty to mention the WP for final hearing. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)