Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

However, on 28/05/2001, the Territory Manager of BPCL terminated the license of the petitioner for alleged lapses and breach of covenants of the dealership agreement by the petitioner on 28/05/2001, after issuing show-cause notice to him on 09/05/2001.

4. Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.21910/2001 and vide order dated 28/05/2004, this Court allowed the petition by setting aside the order passed by the Territory Manager, BPCL, and consequently, a direction was issued to the General Manager (South), Chennai, to examine the case independently and without being influenced by earlier order and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction, Petitioner filed additional objections and the General Manager (South), Chennai reconsidered the matter and by Order dated 21/07/2004, the General Manager (South) confirmed the termination of the dealership agreement.

5. Aggrieved by the order of General Manager (South), Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.Nos.14109/2005, 21858/2005 and 23390/2005 seeking several reliefs, by challenging the order dated 21/07/2004 passed by the General Manager (South), Chennai, and sought for quashing of the said Order, and to issue a direction to Additional Secretary (Marketing), Ministry of Petroleum, to consider the case afresh. On 11/03/2008, this Court refused to entertain the writ petitions as the matter related to a contractual dispute and hence dismissed them with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Additional Secretary (Marketing), Ministry of Petroleum, as this Court was of the view that the Additional Secretary (Marketing), Ministry of Petroleum had supervisory powers to examine the issue and to institute such enquiry on the basis of the representation by the petitioner, which shall be treated as an appeal. Liberty was also reserved to the petitioner to file a civil suit and seek appropriate reliefs, if so advised.

- : 18 : -

(South), Chennai considered the matter afresh and confirmed the order of termination passed by the Territory Manager. It appears that the termination order has been passed on allegation of several lapses and breach of covenants of dealership agreement which included selling spurious lubricants, keeping retail outlet dry, case of adulteration being registered by the IOC Mobile Lab, Non-

Cooperation with oil industry members among other issues, which led to the Respondent-Corporation to issue Show cause notice to the Petitioner and subsequently, terminate the dealership agreement. However, petitioner has been alleging illegality in the order passed by the Territory Manager, which was considered by the General Manager (South), Chennai, who passed an order confirming the termination of the dealership agreement. The order of General Manager was again in challenge before this Court and this Court was of the view that the Additional Secretary (Marketing), Ministry of Petroleum had supervisory power to examine the issue. Thereafter, the Additional Secretary (Marketing), Ministry of Petroleum granted opportunity to the Petitioner to present his case and upon being unsuccessful, the petitioner again