Tripura High Court
Shri Kamal Krishna Podder vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 21 August, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No. 24 of 2015
1. Shri Kamal Krishna Podder,
2. Shri Kinkar Podder,
3. Shri Shyama Prasad Podder,
4. Shri Krishna Podder @ Krishna Das Podder,
- all are sons of late Satish Chandra Podder and residents of
Bashpara Colony, P.O., P.S. & Sub-Division: Belonia, District:
South Tripura
5. Shri Kalyan Krishna Podder @ Kalyan Podder,
son of late Satish Chandra Podder,
resident of village & P.O. Jolaibari,
P.S. Baikhora, District: South Tripura
6. Smti Dipali Podder,
wife of Shri Sankar Podder,
resident of Ganki, P.O. & P.S. Khowai,
Sub-Division:Teliamura, District: Khowai Tripura
............ Petitioners
;;;;;...
- Vs -
1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
North East Integrated State Office,
East Point Tower, Bamuni Maidan,
Guwahati - 781021, Assam
2. The Executive Director,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
North East Integrated State Office,
East Point Tower, Bamuni Maidan,
Guwahati - 781021, Assam
3. The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(Silchar integrated Divisional Office),
Hospital Road, Silchar - 788 005, Assam
W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015
Page 1 of 18
4. The Sales Officer (retail sales),
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Kunjaban Depot, Abhoynagar,
P.O. Abhoynagar, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN: 799 005
5. Shri Binoy Krishna Podder,
son of late Satish Chandra Podder,
resident of Math Chowmuhani,
College Road, P.O. Agartala College,
District: West Tripura, PIN: 799 004
............ Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA For the petitioners : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Senior Advocate Mr. A. Das, Advocate For the respondents No.1-4 : Mr. A. Lodh, Advocate For the respondent No.5 : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate Date of hearing and delivery of judgment and order : 21.08.2017 Whether fit for reporting : No Judgment and Order (Oral) Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.
02. There is no dispute that the petitioners No.1 to 5, the respondent No.5 and Sankar Poddar [represented by the petitioner No.6] are the legal heirs of Satish Chandra Podder who was the authorized agent, initially of Burma Oil Company Limited (BOC) having been W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 2 of 18 appointed as such, in the year 1954 under the name and style of M/S. S.C. Podder, a sole proprietorship firm. In the year 1981, Barma Oil Company Limited (BOC) was taken over by Assam Oil Company Limited (AOC) and finally Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC) had taken over Assam Oil Company Limited (AOC).
03. There is no dispute that Satish Chandra Podder, the predecessor of the petitioners and the respondent No.5, expired on 26.01.1978 leaving behind his wife Sakin Bala Podder (now deceased), three daughters namely, Smti. Gita Rani Saha, Smti. Rita Podder and Smti. Ratna Podder and seven sons namely Shri Binoy Krishna Podder, Shri Kamal Krishna Podder, Shri Kalyan Krishna Podder, Shri Sankar Podder, Shri Kinkar Podder, Shri Shyama Prasad Podder and Shri Krishnadas Podder @ Krishna Podder. On 22.02.1978, all the legal heirs of Satish Chandra Podder by their own volition, decided to run the business jointly and to manage that initial constitution they appointed the respondent No.5 and the petitioner No.5 as the Attorney of their business. It is to be noted that on the same date i.e. 22.02.1978, three daughters and wife of Satish Chandra Podder relinquished their right from the share of the said business. Thus the seven sons of Satish Chandra Podder as stated became the owner of the said business under name and style of M/S. S.C. Podder. On 07.03.1988, one of the sons of Satish Chandra Podder namely Kinkar Podder also relinquished his share in the business in favour of other brothers. Thus the 5(five) petitioners and the respondent No.5 became the owner of the said business under name and style of M/S. S.C. Podder. From the year 1954, M/S. S.C. Podder used to deal with SKO and RO in Khowai, Jolaibari, Bishramganj and Belonia. It is W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 3 of 18 also not in dispute that Satish Chandra Podder died as an agent of Assam Oil Company Limited and thereafter the business was managed by his legal heirs with the consent of Assam Oil Company Limited as their agent. In the year 1981, Indian Oil Company Limited took over Assam Oil Company Limited and thereafter the name and style was changed to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) and all agents of Assam Oil Company Limited including M/S. SC Podder became the dealers of Indian Oil Company Limited (Assam Oil Division) with the existing constitution. Before 2004, neither the respondents nor the earlier company i.e. Assam Oil Company Limited raised any objection about the constitution of the said firm under name and style of M/S. S.C. Podder. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited took over Assam Oil Company Limited with effect from 17.11.1981.
04. From the letter dated 05.01.2007 (Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition) it would appear that even such constitution was within the constructive knowledge of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) and accordingly, when they wrote the letter dated 16.10.2006 [Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition] and the letter dated 05.01.2007 [Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition] they wrote to the writ petitioners and the respondent No.5 not to all the legal heirs of Satish Chandra Poddar. According to the corporation-respondents the petitioners and the respondent No.5 were running the business illegally and without knowledge of the corporation. However, all the petitioners and the respondent No.5 denied the said allegation.
05. By means of the writ petition, the petitioners, the six legal heirs of Satish Chandra Podder, have urged, inter alia to quash the W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 4 of 18 decision contained in the letter dated 08.06.2006 [Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition], the letter dated 03.01.2007 [Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition], the letter dated 05.01.2007 [Annexure- P/6 to the writ petition] and the letter dated 08.11.2013 [Annexure- P/22 to the writ petition]. By the letter dated 08.06.2006 [Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition] the corporation respondents had communicated the Director (F & CS) as under:
"Since the renewal of the storage licenses are pending for several years, we have every reason to believe that the District authority is not interested to renew the same any further. The above fact along with other details were forwarded to our higher authorities for their views. As continuation of supply of SKO(PDS) without valid storage license will be violation of law under Petroleum rule 2002 of Petroleum Act 1934, we are compelled to suspend supply of SKO(PDS)/POL products to the aforementioned agencies with immediate effect."
06. Further, by the letter dated 03.01.2007 [Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition] M/S. Satish Chandra Podder, under the joint proprietorship of the petitioners and the respondent No.5, was informed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) as under:
"In this regard, we draw your attention to the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.06 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the matter of C.M. Application No.556 of 2006 in C.M. Application No.530 of 2006 arising out of W.P.(C) No.403 of 2006 wherein it has been categorically stated, inter alia, "But in the absence of consent of Krishna Podder, it is not possible for Binoy K. Podder and his group to carry on the inherited business of S.C. Podder, either as a partnership business or even as a joint family business, unless they take appropriate steps to legalize their authority to carry on the said business."
In view of above, operation of the 3 (three) no. of Tank Trucks bearing Registration Nos.TR-01B-1882/ TR-01B- 1884/ TR-01B-1885 under the Work Order No. referred above have been suspended with immediate effect.
However, the suspension will be reviewed on receipt of the documents sought vide our letter dated 22.11.06 referred above."
W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 5 of 18
[Emphasis added] Surprisingly, by the letter dated 05.01.2017 [Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition] the petitioners and the respondent No.5 were informed that there was no option but to suspend the supply of all petroleum products to all the units of M/s. S.C. Podder in Tripura. The product, supply of which has been suspended and the location of the said units are as under:
Sl. RO/SKO-LDO Location
No.
1. MS/HSD Retail Outlet Khowai, District West Tripura
2. SKO-LDO Agency Khowai, District West Tripura
3. SKO-LDO Agency & Bishramganj, District West Tripura
HSD Packed Agency
4. HSD Retail Outlet Jolaibari, District South Tripura
5. SKO-LDO Agency Jolaibari, District South Tripura
6. SKO-LDO Agency Belonia, District South Tripura
7. MS Packed Agency Belonia, District South Tripura
07. Earlier, by the letter dated 08.11.2013 [Annexure-P/22 to the writ petition] the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, observed that without revival, no reconstitution was permissible. The said letter reads as under:
"This refer to the applications dated 10.12.12 for reconstitution of the firm M/s. S C Podder having its Retail Outlets(ROs) at Khowai & Jolaibari; and SKO agencies at Khowai, Jolaibari & Belonia all in the state of Tripura.
The ROs and SKO agencies operated at the above mentioned locations under the name & style of the firm M/s. S.C. Podder are inoperative since 05.01.2007 and therefore, the inoperative period is more than 5(five) years. Since, the above business units are under inoperative revivals are required alongwith the reconstitution.
As per the interim guidelines No.RO/RS/Revival dated 01.08.11 for revival of inoperative RO/ SKO dealerships issued from HO, Mumbai upon receipt of revised MoP & NG guidelines (letter dated 08.07.11), revival of RO/SKO dealerships having valid dealership agreement with the W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 6 of 18 same constitution and at the same location will require Board approval for cases lying inoperative for more than 5 (five) years for reasons not attributable to the dealer such as restoration of licenses by statutory authority/decision on appeals under MDG/Order of Court.
From the applications and documents submitted by the legal heirs of late Satish Chandra Podder for reconstitution of the firm M/s. S.C. Podder for ROs located at Khowai & Jolaibari and SKO agencies located at Khowai, Jolaibari & Belonia, the following observations are made:
1. Sri Satish Chandra Podder is the proprietor of the firm M/s. S.C. Podder and therefore is a proprietorship firm.
No valid dealership agreements duly signed by the original proprietor are found available.
2. Request received is for change of Constitution of the firm M/s. S.C. Podder from proprietorship to partnership. This is due to death of Sri Satish Chandra Podder on 26.01.1978.
3. Following expiry of Sri Satish Chandra Podder on 26.01.1978. IOCL vide letter no.G/149/197 dated 23.01.06 advised all the legal heirs of Late Satish Chandra Podder to reconstitute the firm M/s. S.C. Podder within 30 days failing which IOCL would not be able to continue business of supplying petroleum products any longer with the subject firm. Since, the legal heirs of Late Satish Chandra Podder failed to submit the necessary documents for reconstitution within the stipulated period due to dispute arisen between the legal heirs, IOCL vide letter no SALES:AL/207-19 dated 05.01.2007 suspended all the ROs and SKO agencies operated under the firm M/s. S.C. Podder with a condition to review the matter on receipt of necessary documents legalizing the co-sharers authority to carry on the said business. Dispute amongst the legal heirs of Late Satish Chandra Podder further with the filing of various writ appeals by the legal heirs in the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. The court cases continued till the legal heirs finally decided to withdraw all the court cases and accordingly, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide order dated 11.09.2012 allowed them to withdraw their writ appeals. As a result, the legal heirs could not settle the disputes amongst themselves and thereby all the ROs and SKO agencies of the firm M/s. S.C. Podder are inoperative for more than 5 (five) years for reasons attributable to the legal heirs (dealer) of Late Satish Chandra Podder.
Under the above stated observations, the interim guidelines do not permit revivals of the Retail Outlets at Khowai & Jolaibari; and SKO agencies at Khowai, Jolaibari & Belonia in the state of Tripura operated under the firm M/s. S.C. Podder. Since, reconstitution without revival does not exist, reconstitution under the present circumstance, therefore, shall not possible."
[Emphasis added] W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 7 of 18
08. There was no ambiguity in the said letter dated 08.11.2013. The corporation-respondents had clearly expressed that the units of M/s. S.C. Podder, operation of which, were suspended by the orders dated 03.01.2007 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] and 05.01.2007 [Annexure- 6 to the writ petition] could not be allowed to operate without proper re- constitution. M/s. S.C. Podder has suffered serious predicament. But according to the petitioners, the said action was taken without relevant consideration.
09. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 have submitted in unison that the said action of suspending the operation of the units under M/s. S.C. Podder was entirely unexpected and totally unlawful. The respondent-corporations had never raised any objection regarding the reconstitution amongst the legal heirs of M/s. S.C. Podder, the original licensee of the business. It is admitted by the petitioner that there was absence of total understanding amongst the legal heirs regarding the reconstitution of the firm and its operating mechanism, but finally the petitioners and the respondent No.5 had agreed to a reconstitution by relinquishment of rights and the division of interests at the guidance of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) as would be evident from a minuted resolution dated 27.05.2011. The petitioners and the respondent No.5 was agreed to the reconstitution in the following terms:
RO/ Location Proposed for reconstitution in favour of SKO RO Khowai Sri Binoy Poddar and Smt. Dipali Poddar (Wife of Sri Sankar Poddar) RO Jolaibari Sri Kalyan Poddar and Sri Krishna Poddar SKO Belonia/Khowai/ Sri Shyama Prasad Poddar & Sri Kamal Krishna Poddar Jolaibari SKO Bisramganj Sri Kinkar Poddar W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 8 of 18
10. It is to be noted that Sri Kinkar Podder had earlier relinquished the right in favour of the present petitioners No.1-5 and the respondent No.5 after taking his sole right to operate the Bisramganj unit under M/s. S.C. Podder and on such grant Kinkar Podder relinquished the right on the other units of M/s. S.C. Podder. However, in the table above the name of Kinkar Podder and Bisramganj unit has also been shown.
The representatives of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) assured that necessary formats and documents would be supplied by them for reconstitution in terms of the above. In the sequel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has submitted that the statements and the application in the prescribed formats with necessary documents were prepared and filled up and forwarded by the petitioners and the said respondent No.5. Those formats are available at Annexure- P/11 collectively. Even thereafter, whenever the Indian Oil Corporation Limited-respondent asked the petitioners or any of them or any legal heirs for that matter, they immediately furnished necessary details as would be available from Annexure-P/12 to Annexure-P/14 in the writ petition. When such initiative was afoot, the impugned orders of suspending the operation of the units under M/s. S.C. Podder were passed by the respondent No.1 on the ground that after such long years of inoperation license of those units cannot be revived. The license would mean the license for the units which are dealing with the SKOs or RO as well as license for the oil tankers. This is why the petitioners and the respondent No.5 have challenged the action of the respondent-the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 9 of 18 appearing for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that even the suspension orders have been issued in contravention to the guidelines for the corporation. Those orders of suspension are the result of misreading of their own guidelines. In this regard, Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel and Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing respectively for the petitioners and the respondent No.5 have referred to one of the guidelines as incorporated in the purported policy which reads as under:
"RO/SKO dealership having valid dealership agreements and lying inoperative will require Board approval for revival only in cases where they are lying inoperative for more than 5 years for reasons not attributable to the dealer such as restoration of licences by statutory authority/decision on appeals under MDG/Order of Court. Such matters will be forwarded for consideration of Board and depending on the merit of the case, revival with the same constitution at the same location will be approved by the Board.
Further, you are requested to immediately examine all pending cases and take immediate action for revival of dealerships, in commercial interest of Corporation, where ROs/SKO dealerships have been inoperative for less than 5 years. This should be subject to compliance of applicable statutory and internal guidelines."
11. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the reasons for the suspension as provided in the letter dated 08.11.2013 is wholly misdirected, erroneous and unsustainable in law inasmuch as the five years of inoperation was not available in the present case and therefore the respondents, Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has urged this court, be directed to revive and accept the reconstitution of the RO/SKO dealership agreements for the units mentioned in terms of the proposed reconstitution.
12. In reply, Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1-4 has taken this court to the records to point out that W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 10 of 18 the guidelines as followed in the corporation clearly stipulate that the dealership remaining inoperative for a period of more than 3(three) years will not be revived. Such provision is available on the clause 4.6 of the Policy Circular No.98-12/2005 dated 09.10.2006. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further submitted that the corporation is not bound by what has been done by the officers who are not duly authorized to represent the company and as such this minuted resolution cannot have any substantive force to hold that the company has by action accepted the reconstitution etc. Having confronted by this circumstance and the transaction, this court is of the view that the orders dated 03.01.2007 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] and 05.01.2007 [Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition] are not in accordance with the policy which is relevant and is supposed to be applied in this case.
13. The respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) by filing their reply has submitted further that the letter dated 08.06.2006 as was issued to the Director (F & CS) regarding suspension of supply of SKO(PDS) was so issued for non-renewal of the storage licenses of M/s. S.C. Podder for several years. By that letter, the Indian Oil Corporation had requested to reallocate the SKO(PDS) quota for the location mentioned in the letter to other agencies which are located nearby inasmuch as the products were essential commodities and the discontinuation of supply had affected the common people at large. The letter dated 03.01.2007 was not pertaining to reconstitution of the subject-agency, but the same was issued regarding suspension of operation of three tank-trucks for transportation of POL products in Dharmanagar sector under the work order No.D/TL/AP/DMR-1345 dated W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 11 of 18 28.08.2003. As per the established norms, the corporation had sent several communications to the petitioners and the respondent No.5 for reconstituting the firm after death of the original dealer. It was quite specifically informed to the petitioners that the corporation had decided to suspend the supply of POL products to M/s. S.C. Podder for seven location by the letter dated 05.01.2007. The respondents have further stated that the reconstruction of their firm by referring to those letters is not only untrue but an attempt to mislead the court with oblique purpose. Be that as it may, the respondents cannot deny that the status after the reconstitution was known to them and the minuted resolution, was also signed by their representatives. Even on acting on the said minuted resolution, the corporation made correspondence to the petitioners and the respondent No.5. The corporation-respondent was supposed to formally accept the reconstitution of M/s. S.C. Podder by way of allocating various units amongst the legal heirs of Satish Chandra Podder, since deceased.
14. The sheet-anchor of the controversy however hinges on whether the various circulars as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents can finally seal the revival of the dealership license and the licenses for the tanker etc. It is apparent on the face of the records, that prior to issuance of the letter dated 08.06.2006 the units of M/s. S.C. Podder were operating, though there was some irregularity in renewal of storage license etc. Hence, at least till 08.06.2006 the dealership and the license of the tankers were in operation.
W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 12 of 18
15. On 16.10.2006, the Indian Oil Corporation (Assam Oil Division) made the request to the petitioners and the respondent No.5 and none else, to reconstitute the business to a registered partnership firm comprising all the legal heirs and such reconstitution was requested to be made within the 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of that letter. The petitioners and the respondent No.5 have fairly admitted that during that time they could not come together for some irreconcilable differences. But later on, they came to an agreement and decided to distribute various firms amongst them in terms of the table above and accordingly they let the matter known to the representatives of the Indian Oil Corporation. From the minutes of the meetings held on 26.05.2011 and 27.05.2011 it appears that after discussion the petitioners and the respondent No.5 had decided to manage the units namely Khowai (for RO), Jolaibari (for RO), Belonia, Khowai and Jolaibari (for SKO) and distributed the interest and operation between the three sets of proprietorships. The distribution has been reflected in the table hereinabove. Thereafter, the petitioners and the respondent No.5 with all necessary testimonials, requested for the reconstitution.
16. Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1-4 has submitted that from the impugned orders of suspension three years have clearly been elapsed. Even 'five years' have been elapsed. As such, there is no scope of revival in terms of the present policy of the corporation. No doubt, unless the dealership and the license of the tankers are revived there is no question of accepting the reconstitution of M/s. S.C. Podder. The first thing shall come first. So far the revival is concerned it is the contention of the corporation that it was supposed to W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 13 of 18 be done within the period of three years. These three years should mean from the date of death of the original dealer. The five years shall also mean similarly. But the policy circular No.98(A)-10/2006 [Annexure-P/17 to the writ petition] while dealing with the revival has laid down in no uncertain terms that the dealership remaining inoperative for a period for more than three years will not be revived. It is to be mentioned here that the guidelines dealing with the revival further provides that:
(i) Dealerships terminated on account of malpractices/ irregularities/ breach of Dealership Agreement/Violation of MDG. This will not however come in the way of consideration of decision on appeals, which may be made by the terminated dealership under the provision of MDG;
(ii) Terminated SKO/LDO dealerships;
(iii) In cases other than 4.1 above (for reasons beyond the control of the dealer), depending on the merit of the case, revival with the same constitution at the same location may be permitted with the approval of Board of Directors.
(iv) The dealer must meet the eligibility criteria for selection of a new dealer, which are in vogue at the time of revival.
(v) The dealer will be required to deposit the security amount payable to new dealerships.
(vi) Dealerships inoperative from a date prior to 1.4.2002 will not be considered for revival.W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 14 of 18
(vii) Dealerships remaining inoperative for a period of more than 3 years will not be revived.
[Emphasis added]
17. All earlier guidelines with regard to reconstitution, Resitement and Revival of Retail Outlet Dealerships and SKO-LDO Dealerships stand abrogated with introduction of the new guidelines. In view of these guidelines, particularly, the clause that the dealership remained inoperative for more than three years cannot be applied in the present case inasmuch as the dealership was suspended by the corporation- respondent. Suspended dealership cannot be treated as the inoperative dealership. By any stretch of interpretation of the words and phrases of the said circular, Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has contended, the decision of the respondents No.1-4 cannot get nourishment. The letter dated 01.08.2011 may have some relevance inasmuch as it provides that RO/SKO dealership having valid dealership agreements and lying inoperative, will require board's approvals for revival only in cases where there are lying inoperative for more than five years for reason not attributable to the dealer, such as restoration of the licenses by statutory authority/decision on the appeals under MDG, order of court. Such matter will be forwarded for consideration of the board and depending on merit of the case, revival with the same constitution and same location will be approved by the board. According to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, since the dealership was not suspended for inoperation, the approval from the board is also not required. Even in the normal channel, the revival can be made by the corporation. W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 15 of 18
18. From the scrutiny of the letter dated 08.11.2013, the main gravamen of the controversy can be gathered. Till the suspension, the operation of M/S. S.C. Podder was not on any legal basis, because there was no valid/renewed agreement for operating those units. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that at the time of death of the original dealer namely Satish Chandra Podder, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) was not the licensing authority as in the year 1981, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) took over the Assam Oil Company. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has not omitted to state that the Assam Oil Company had been duly informed of the death of the original dealer and they permitted the legal heirs of Satish Chandra Podder to operate the units. Therefore, there was no illegality. Even if technically there was no reconstitution of the firm, adequate papers were transmitted by the legal heirs to support their right to operate the units inasmuch that the writ petitioner No.5 and the respondent No.5 were made the constituted attorney of all the legal heirs who had not relinquished their right over the business. Those relinquished their right over the business, their deed of relinquishment were also sent to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. As such there was no palpable irregularity on the basis of which the reconstitution can be denied. True it is that, the petitioners and the respondent No.5 took long years to reconstitute their business in terms of the policy. That has created the troubles they are now confronted with. Finally the good sense prevailed over the petitioners and the respondent No.5 and they formed the consensus to reconstitute the firm and accordingly that was done with participation and W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 16 of 18 guidance of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division). But, later on, the corporation-respondents resiled from their position and stated that they would not accept that reconstitution. They did not recall the order of suspension as challenged herein.
19. On hearing the parties quite at length, this court is of the view that there is no bar for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division) to consider the revival of the dealership alongwith licenses for the tankers and thereafter to accept the reconstitution of M/s. S.C. Podder. This court broadly finds that the revival and reconstitution are permissible under the guidelines as adopted by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Assam Oil Division). If the limitation becomes a bar for any reason, this court has taken note that the Board of Directors has all the powers to consider, revive and accept the reconstitution. Moreover, this court should emphasize at this point that Indian Oil Corporation Limited by its regular channel can revive and accept the reconstitution of the firm. It is not the case that the matter would essentially be required to be sent to the board for their decision, but for any reason the Indian Oil Corporation finds that the reference to the board is essential, they can make such reference. But this should be done if so required. In this context, this court is persuaded to direct the respondents No.1-4 to consider the revival and reconstitution afresh. As consequence thereof, the impugned orders particularly the order refusing the revival and reconstitution as reflected in the order dated 08.11.2013 [Annexure-P/22 to the writ petition] stands quashed. If the revival is considered favourably, the orders of suspension as stated, shall be of no consequence. The usual terms and conditions as provided by the said W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 17 of 18 policy circular, may be imposed by the respondents No.1-4 for purpose of revival of the dealership and the Oil-Tanker licences. It is further directed to revisit the decision on the reconstitution in consideration of all relevant factors.
The entire exercise shall be completed within 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE Moumita W.P.(C). No. 24 of 2015 Page 18 of 18