IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8228 of 2010 M/S MAA VINDHYAVASINI ENTERPRISES SHAHPUR,DISTRICT BHOJPUR THROUGH ITS PARTNER BINOD KUMAR TIWARI, S/O NARBADESHWAR TIWARI, R/O VILLAGE BADKI NAINIJOR, P.S. BADKI NAINIJOR, DISTRICT BUXAR. ……PETITIONER. Versus 1. INDIAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,MUMBAI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,INDIAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED,BIHAR STATE OFFICE,LOKNAYAK BAHAWAN FRAZER ROAD,PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,INDIAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED,BIHAR STATE OFFICE,LOKNAYAK BAHAWAN FRAZER ROAD,PATNA. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER,INDIAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED,BIHAR STATE OFFICE, LOKNAYAK BAHAWAN FRAZER ROAD,PATNA. 5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, RETAIL SALES, INDIAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED,DIVISIONAL OFFICE,PATNA. 6. THE MANAGER RETAIL SALES,INDIAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED,DIVISIONAL OFFICE PATNA. 7. THE DEPUTY MANAGER RETAIL SALES,INDIAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED,DIVISIONAL OFFICE, (MARKETING DIVISION ),PATNA…RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents :Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate. ----------- 11/ 10.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Indian Oil Company Limited and its authorities. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 31.03.2010 by which Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Company Limited (respondent no.4) terminated the agreement between the parties with respect 2 to retail outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership in question and also for directing the respondents authorities to take appropriate steps for revival of the said retail outlet and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was having his retail outlet on the basis of agreement between him and Indo Berma Petroleum Company Limited (I.B.P.L.), but subsequently some dispute arose with respect to obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from National Highway Authorities of India and vide letter dated 20.04.2005 (Annexure-5), the sales and supplies to the retail outlet were suspended. Subsequently in the year 2007 I.B.P.L. was taken over by the Indian Oil Company Limited (I.O.C.), whereafter it sent a letter to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India giving its proposal for seeking permission for access to the aforesaid proposed retail outlet mentioned above on NH-84 in village Shahpur in the district of Bhojpur. 4. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways sent letter dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure-20) requesting I.O.C. to furnish the requisite one time licence fee amounting to Rs. 1,00,000.00 (rupees one lac) through a demand draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer (PAO), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, payable at New Delhi. It was only thereafter that the impugned letter dated 31.03.2010 was issued by the authorities of the I.O.C. to the petitioner terminating the retail outlet dealership of the petitioner with 3 immediate effect. 5. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is quite apparent that the petitioner had his retail outlet dealership at the above mentioned place up till 31.03.2010, although it was non-functional since 20.04.2005. Hence when the authorities of the I.O.C. had sent its proposal vide Letter No.RW/PAT/NH/BR/PP/PATNA-PURNEA /2007-07 to the Government of India for licence, it was doing so on behalf of the petitioner’s retail outlet dealership and therefore when the demand of licence fee of Rs.1,00,000.00 (rupees one lac) was made by the Government of India vide letter dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure-20) it was incumbent upon the authorities of the I.O.C. either to pay the said amount or to ask the petitioner to pay the said amount to the Government of India, even if the duty of payment of said amount was upon the petitioner. However, there is nothing to show that the authorities of the I.O.C. made any effort with respect thereto or sending any communication to him and hence there was no occasion for the petitioner of having any knowledge of the said communications between the Government and the I.O.C. regarding the requirement of Rs.1,00,000.00 (rupees one lac) to be paid as licence fee. 6. So far Clause 6 of the Agreement between the parties is concerned, it requires the dealer to faithfully observe and perform all the terms and conditions for such licence and promptly renew the same from time to time. However, in the 4 instant case, since letter was sent by the I.O.C. to the Government of India on behalf of the petitioner, the said condition was fulfilled and there was no occasion for the petitioner to repeat the same exercise. Hence, it was the duty of the authorities of the I.O.C. to inform the petitioner about the reply sent by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 27.11.2009 requiring payment of licence fee of Rs.1,00,000.00 (rupees one lac) and if in those circumstances the petitioner would have failed to make payments it could have been legally held to be guilty, but that is not the case here, as the petitioner was kept in complete darkness about the direction for payment of any such amount. In the said circumstances the impugned termination letter dated 31.03.2010 sent by the respondent I.O.C. appears to have been issued without considering the important facts which clearly showed that there was none of the fault of the petitioner for which he was being punished by termination of the dealership. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the said termination letter dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure-23) is hereby quashed and the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000.00 (rupees one lac) along with a copy of this order before the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Company Limited, Patna within fifteen days from today so that the said authority may deposit the same as licence fee through demand draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer 5 (PAO), Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, payable at New Delhi, without any further delay. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)