® Cm€'Q 2/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.No; J52§ /2oo3 1. PRAVEEN KUMAR LAKHGTIA S/o Shri Brij Mohan Lakhotia, aged about 31 years, ‘V 2. PRADEEP KUMAR LAKHOTIA S/o Shri Brij Mohah Lakhotia, aged about 24 years, Both partners :— M/s Ashirwad agency Bemetara, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Petitioner ?.:r’ 7 VERSUS Respondents : C1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited r / Regd. Office — G9 Ah Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra East Mumbai 400051 ,fiThrough : General Manager Indian Oi1 Corporation Limited Raipur Divisiona] Office Aerodrum Road, Raipur (C.G.) Senior Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Raipur Divisional Office Aerodrum Road, Raipur (CG) 3‘ The Collector, Durg (Clihattisgarh) X ‘V €> f4. Shri V. Venu, Chhattisgarh Fuels, Indian Oil Corporaticn Limited, Main Road, Bemetara, Diéft: Dulg (C.G.) /» I / f f I WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OEINDIA. f 1 /,, 1 ' X/ II? s ‘ x j HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGAMI i J Wxit Petitioaz No.1925 of 2003 . ygezw Pravaen Kumar Lakhofja & another’ -‘ Versus - Indian Oil Corporation Limited and othsrs- Writ Pet%tion No.613 of 2001 Praveon Kumar Lakhotia 8r, allother - Versus « Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others AND Writ Petition No.47 of 2001 Praveen Kumar Lakhotia 85 another - Versus - Indian Oil Corporation Limited and otherS P0$T FOR ORDER ON 27th $EPTEMBER 2004 \ J f H GH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition No.1925 of 2003 Mwww v~w....,..mm‘‘_....M. W A ‘Pravaen Kumar Lakhotia 3a another Vu — w Indn Oil Corporation Limited and othes ia r — ergs Mr. . G Ta, at: ‘ or the etiner ia Kinr, Avoca: Fo resonen Pse on %Sepmb 204) (asd _teer, 0 1 T pers Praveen ar Laoa 8 Pre ar ‘ ho r t / swa 3? fe w e o 2 13 2 r, 0 er cl 26 Cu i, t n 23 etitrs v ng ia eei e O5 1 ur 2 ene e e r ; e res oro t ree t up m by is md n l r” V 4 maskar Advoce F ptios Mr> Bhsm ga dte r te pdts. , Before Honble Mr. LC. Bhadoo, J. ’ O R D E R he etition Kum khti a adep Kum Lakhona w ae parners 1n Ms Ahnad Agency, have L prerred three nt ptitions Ns 195/03 6/ 001 8 47/ 201 I und Arues 2/227, of the onstittion of Inda By wm petitio No 1925;00 the pione hae challeed the < termntion order of dalrshp datd 02 200 (Annexe P 10) bV writ petition No 610/00] the ptitiois hav prayd fo dircting the pondents Cporatin o stor he spiy bf agreed petroleu products suing a writ of anamus advvlay J Writ Petition No.61?» of 2001 1 g i Praveen Kumar Lakhotia 8n another _ 39’“ i ) - Versus — ‘ E § Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others ' ' _ a r V I i ‘ AND i i I Writ Petition No.47 of 2001 i E ‘ % i Praveen Kumai‘ Lakhotia 8a another — Versus - E I: IndianrOil Corporation Limited and others ‘ Present: — i i 1 x ‘ wrlt psntlon No 47/ 2001 the, petitioners have prayed for quashment of the Show cause nouce Annexure P 7 and further prayed to d1rect the respondent Corporatlon to regulanze the supply of petroleum products Le. D1ese1 (HSD) «St. Petrol (MS) etc. 2 Bmef facts leadmg to f'hng of these wnt petmons are that by' 1 1 r ; f t ; y S l ¢ l 1 ‘ f X l ‘ k ’ y . s ‘ ; agreement dated 01 O2 1097 (Annexure P 1) the petmonels am} respondents Indlan 011 Corporatlon Ltd ente1ed Into an agreement whereby the respondents Corporauon awarded a dealershlp of petroleum products namely Dlesel (HSD) 8a Petrgk’fMS to the pennoners firm M/s Aashuwaad Agencv s1tuated at Bemetra Ignstrlct Durg The respondents Corporatlon Ralpur 1ssuecl a show cause not1ce dated 28 04 2000 (Annexure P 2) to the petmoners mentlonmg therem that on 14th] 15th of AprJl 2000 the Deputy Manager (V1g11ance) Headquarter Mumbal along Wtth Area Manager Indane Area O$ce, Ralpur earned out mspectlon and suspended the sales and supphes clue to vanatton 1n dens1ty of MS (‘36 HSD bevond permtss1ble hm1t accordmglv, on lo 04 2000 Deputy Manager (S) Bh11a1 along w1th DeputV Manger (TS), Ralpur vrs1ted the petltroners retall outlet and camed out mspectton of the retall outlet and samples of MS 81; HSD were also taken for 11b test] research octane No (R O N ) and on communlcatmn from N1shadpura Lab V1de letter dated 25 O4 2000 ‘ to the effect that the sample of MS falls to meet the spec1f1cat10n requlrement m respect of R O N therefore a show cause notlce , was 1ssued to the petttroners to explam the reasons as to why the product mentloned was found not meetmg the leqtured spec1ficat10ns and as to why penal achon as per the Corporatlon rules and gundehnes should not be taken agalnst your dealershtp as deemed fit by the Corpora‘uon The petttloners submtted then“ explanatlon dated 12 5 2000) f'(Annexure P 8) m whlch 1t was mentloned that the samples whrch , were taken by respondent No 2 were nelther sealed nor taken 1n _ presence of the pennoners or thelr representattve employee and the ‘ test was carried out by the laboratory 1n thetr absence therefore was not bmdmg on the petmonexs agency petltloners agency was served w1th the final Show cause not1ce \ dated 27 11 2000 (Annexure P 6) to whrch the petmoners hav Fai \ recelvmg a’ t a , t Thereafter, the a w also Submltted thelr replv dated O4 12 2000 (Annexure P 7) and challengmg the sand fm& Show cause nouce Ammxure P 6 the petmoners hersm filsd a writ p€tlt10n uJlder Amcle 226 f 227 of the Consnmhon of Incha, whlch came to be xeglgtemcl as W P No 47/2001 Theleaftar, respondent \Io 1 & 2 111 continuation of thmr Show causc’ notice on 27 1 1 2000 took a d€c1s1on to termmato tho dsalorshlp of the pemtloners therefore the petltlonem had flied wmt pe’utlon beamg W P No 613/ 2001 challengmg the Show cause notlce dated 27 11 2000 However dunng the pendency of these two wnt pe’utlons the respondent Corporatlon on 02 00 2001 V (Annexure P 10) termmated the dealership of thew petmoners ‘ agency The petitioners V1de apphcatlon dated o1 7 2001 1equested respondent No 1 to 1efer the matte1 for arb1trat10n accordmgly, I S1111 Shmde “as appomted as Sole Arbltrator, who after healing both the partles was pleased to subrmt the award on 14 11 2002 iAnnexure P-ll) m that award the Arbltrator reached to the conclusmn that the action taken by respondent No 1 was not 3Lst1f1ed however, m vxew of the decrnon of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported 1n 991 g1} $CC 533 he dechne to restore the dealershlp AgaJnst this award the pet1t1oners tiled an apphcatton under Sectlon o4 of the Arb1trat10n (35 Concmatlon Act 1996 befo1e the D1stnct Judge, Dulg, who transferred the same to the Coutt of 4th Additional District Judge, Durg, h1ch 1s pendmg for cons1derat10n on the date of iilmg of th1s wr1t petltlon ‘2 ‘r Further case of the petmoners 1s that the respondent Corporanon w1thout making the sald award role of court proceeded to execute the sald award on 10 05 2003, forelbly took the possessmn of the petrol pump and remove the fixtures] outlets broke locks etc AgaJnst thls actlon of the respondents, the petl’uoners moved '1 contempt petltton heanng Contempt Petmon No 50/200o, whlch 1s 51111 penchng Ultnnately the petltloners prayed that the termination order dated 02 05 2001 (Annexule P-lO) be quashed and respondent-Corp01at10n be dnected to restore the supplv of petroleum products Return has been tiled on behalf of the 1espondent Corporahonk wherem the factual pos1t10n 1s almost adnntted by the respondent 1 & e 1ssuance of show cause not1ce termmatton of the dealershlp 93 ‘ 131itions flled by the petitioners It has further been mentioned 1n 3the return that after termmatlon of the dealershlp by the z respondent Corpora‘uon v1de Annexure P 10 the dlspute waS ‘referred to the Arb1trator m pursuance of the pentloners appheation dated 31 07 2001 mvokmg Clause 69 of the Dealershlp gAgreement daied 1.2.1997 (Annexure P—1). On 14.11.2002 the Arhih‘ator passed the award (Annexure P 11) and agaJnst Whloh QLhe penuoners had preferred an apphcauon before the D1st11ct ' E Court Durg, winch 15, arm pendmg for cons1deranon When fufrher . case 1s that on sudden mspectlon earned out by the reSpondents t the retall outlet of the pett‘uoners samples of the petroleum i products were taken and through the laboratory same were found J § dulterated and much below the standard speeziicatlons xThe1efore a show cause nonce was 1ssued and ultnnately the deale1sh1p was termmated as per terms and condmons of the , agleement On 10 04 200 the petlttoners sent the consent m wntmg to E respondent No 8 for lease or sale of the land m favour of the respondent No 1 g, accordmgly on 16 4 200o respondent No o Collector sent a memo to respondent No 2 to restart the sald petrol pump consldenng the hassles faced by general pubhc of the‘area ‘ Copy of the consent letter dated 10 04 2000 and. Memo dated 16 4 200a are Annexure R1 1 65 R1 2 to the return On 17 4 2003 by, another memo respondent. No.3-C011ector tssued no objectlon certificate in favour of respondent No.1 <35 2 for the use of land survey No.1207 area 3480 sq. ft. at Bernetra Vide Annexure R1-3. Respondent No.3 also informed about the non-renewal of thedease favour of the petitioners and tiansfer of the land 1n favour of the “espondent Corporation Vide AnneXure R1 4 On 07 5 200‘) the oetittoners once acam re1terated and reaihrmed their consent fol the use of the land 1n quesnon by the respondent Corporation v1de Annexure R1-6 and on 9.5.2003 the Sub Divisional. Officer Bemetra directed the Tehsildar Bemetia to dehver the possessmn of the Site to respondent No 2 for the purpose However the petitioners suddenly reversed their pos1tion questioned their own consent by letter-dated 09 5 2003 addressed to all the concerned parties (Annexure R1 8) On 10 05 2004 Tehsddar delivered the possession of the land to respondent No 2 by preparing a X I i rm. E é V Oldg"wuwm,“ MAM”A“ , M .V , v Pgnchnama and on £116 same day respondent Corpomtion put réspondent No.4 ill—charge of the said petrol pump as job ‘contractor on the COCO basis (Annexure Rl—Q). Therefore, the petition of the petitioners be dismissed. 1 I: have heard Shri V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the piedtioners and Shii Bhisma Kingar, learned counsel for respondents. 1 l The factual aspects of the case are almost admitted byvthe parties ‘ After issuance of the termination Older (Annexure P—lO) by: Respondent Corporation the petmoners herem moved an; _ arpplication on 31.7.2001 requesting the respondent Corporation to: refer the matter to the Arbitration as per Clause 69 of the: Aigrcement Accordinaly, a sole Arbitrator Shn' Sliinde was appomted who 1n turn after givmg opportunity to the parties passed the award on 14 11 2002 (Annexure P 11) the final conclus1on of the Arbitrator was that the petitioners are not entitled for restoration of the dealership in View of the dec1sion of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the matter of Indian 011 Corporatron/ Md. Vs. Amritsar Gas Service and other reported in 199111Y SCC 533 Learned counsel for the petitloners aigued that unless that award rs made rule of court that cannot be executed and respondent Corporation without anplying the court for making the; award rule of court executed the said award In my opinion the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petltioners is totally contrary to the legal pos1tion After coming into the force of the ‘ Arbitration and (‘onc1liation Act 1996 (hereinafter shall be called as ‘Act of 1996) it is not necessary that the awaid should be made rule of court. After submission? of the award as per the provisions: of Section 35 of the Act of 1996, the award becomes final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively, therefore there 1s no question for makmg the awaid as rule of court However, the aggrieved party is entitled for making application for setting as1de the said award in accordance With sub section (2) 85 (o) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 In the present case the petitioners have alreadv moved an application for s tmg aslde of me awald before the D1$tr1ct Court Durg, Whlch 1 pandmg for dec1s1on The respondent Corporauon termmated tho potmoners tiaalershq) V1de order dated O2 O5 2001 cons1dermg the reply of the p ilhoners m respon$e to the Show cauee notlce and found that I V etmoners had Vlolated the various terms and cond1t10ns of the agreement dated 01 O2 1997 The Clause 58 (f) of the sald é agreement env1sage$ that “If the license Iseued to the Dealer by the , g relevant au1homzes for the siorage ofpetroleum product supphed by the Corporatzon as canceled or revoked” then the Corporation shah t be at hbertv to termmate th1s agreement forthvmth u¥on or at any ume' Further conchtlon (1) of Clause 58 of the Agreement env1Sage ‘ that “if the Beater shall dehberately contammafe 0i tamper wit quaftty or any of the Corporation s products then the Corporauon ‘ A¥’ I hus“ clause w1thout prejudlce to any of 1ts 0t therefore t h hes agamst the Deal ' T , V /eKV , ’ the petltmners It is an adnntted fact that the test samples collected by respondent No 2 from the outlet of th pentloners Was found to be not 1n conformlty Wlth the standard spemflcatlons and that the Collector has already cancelled hcense of the peutwners, the respondent Corporation was w1t H C I the1r 0 the nght Arbnrator to cancel and the he deaersh1p gave 111s award Smce on the 14 matter ll 2002 was whlch referre 'under challenge before the Dlstnct Comt Burg, accordmgly, th alternatlve remedy avatlable under Clause 69 of the Agreement ha already been availed by the partles therefore 1n my opmlon th1 wnt pehtlon does not he as the matter ls sull sub ‘ VI the peutloners W111 be at hberty to enforce thelr mght 1f accrue 1n thelr favour after final adjudlcauon of the apphcatlon moved b matter of U P. State Bridge I I V, ; ama Setu N_gam S. Karamchari Sa R n CC Page 268 1t has been held that where speafzc remed rovided for m the statute the H1gh Court may not deviate from t : 1s 1 . p s ; h ‘ , ( er th e h 1 d” e s s y S y p he 'isg‘tatutory rémedy is available to the petitioners, they have availed itile same and application‘for setting aside the same has been filed‘r ~b‘y them before the District Court Durg, therefore on this groundl also this wnt petiuon does not he A In the matter of Indian Oil; Oorporatxon Ltd (supra), Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble‘ Aipex Court held that where the contract bemg detenmnable Section 1‘4(1)(c) of the Spectfzc ReizefAct attracfe& no such writ petmon hes In Paragraph 1 1 of this Judgment the Hon ble Apex Court has held that m the contractual matters writ petttton does not he and It Is not A¥"y necessary to go Into the consmutwnal limitations of1¥t1cle 14 of the: Constxtution to which the appeiiant-Corporatton as §an3 zhstrumentahty of the State wouid be subject pamculariy zn mew of the recent ciectszons of thts Court m Dwarkadas Marfatla and Sons; V Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, Mahabir Auto Stores ‘v : Indian Oil Corporatwn and Shnlekha Vzdyatthl V State of UP Irv t such matters the matter must be deaded stnctly m the realm of private law rights governed bJ the general law retatmg to contracte with reference to the provtszons of the Speczftc Relief Act promdmg ; for non—enforceabtlzty of certam types of contracts The facts of thev above case are sumlar to the present case, therefore 1n View ofv above dec1sion also the wnt petltlon does not he. i . As far as the restoration of the supply to the petitioners 1st concerned smce the license for running the petrol pump issued in favour of the petitioners has already been cancelled by the Collector the dealership has been termmated by the respondent Corporation the petitioners themselves gave consent lettert (Annexure R1 1) dated 10 O4 2003 to the Collector Durg that theyK have no objection if the land in question on which petrol pump of M] s Aashnwaad Avency is eXisting is transferred to the respondent 7 Corporation for running the petiol pump and 1n pursuance of that' ‘ consent letter, SDO Bemetra handed over the possessmn of the petrol pump to the respondent CorpOiation now they are running f the petrol pump and the fact that the lease is also not renewed in 'favour of the petitioners I am of the opinion that no such order ~ . can be passed in favour of the petitioners for restoring the supplyl of petroleum products It is true that after givmg letter dated 10 O4 2003 85 08 05 2003 on 09 05 2003 the petitioners agai y i I t l 1 l 1 n V ¥ :sent a letter to ths Sub D1v1s1onal O$cer, Bemstra statmg th possession of the land in question should not be handed over to gthe respondent Corporatlon but before that they had already gave gthelr consent and 1n pursuant to that Sub D1V1s1ona1 Officer E [Bemetra handed over the possession to the Corporation on 10‘05 2003 Therefore unless the termination order dated rlO'OS 2001 (Annexure P—lO) is set as1de the license is restored by l l ithe Collector and the lahd on Whlch the petrol pump ls ex1stmg 1s iagam leased by the Collector m favour of the petmoners rehef ask for cal’lnot b€ grantéd V.Q wfy t t ano‘ther Vs. indian 011 Cozporatmn Ltd 85 others reported m @003 l [2} SCC 107 argued that agamst the termmatlon of the ‘dealershlp, Wh1ch was petltloners b1ead and butter the petmoners are entitled to maintain writ petition But in my opinion this dec1s10n of the Hon’ble Apex Court 1s no help to the petmoners for the reason that m that matter dealers had approached the Court d1rectly challengmg the order passed by the Corporatlon and no arb1trat10n proceedmgs were mmated 1n that case whereas 1n the present case by the consent of both the parties, arbltrahon proceedings were initiated and Arbitrator gave the award againSt the petitioners, which is under challenge and pending before the District Court Therefore the alternative remedy has already been availed by the parties and during the pendency of that proceeding l am of the opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable . Consequently, writ petition No.47/2001 challenging the show cause notice and writ petition No.613/ 200 1 filed by the petitioners foridirecting the respondent Corporation to restore the supply are not maintainable as the main writ petihon No 1925/2000 is held to be not maintainable - J - i ,p In the result the petitions of the petitioners are liable to be dismissed and same are dismssed . Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the dec1s1on of the « %Hoh'ble Apex Court delivered m the matter of Harbanslal *Sahnia an I i at