IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11509 of 2010 DHARM VARDHAN PRASAD S/O SHRI YOGENDRA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- BELWANNA, P.S.- MOTIHARI (TOWN), DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN…. ……………PETITIONER Versus 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFICE AT G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA, EAST MUMBAI-400 055 2. GENERAL MANAGER & DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, THROUGH ITS STATE OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, 5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAIPRAKASH BHAWAN, DAKBUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 3A, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAKBUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA 4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER AT KRISHNA COMPLEX, AKHARA GHAT ROAD, MUZAFFARPUR 5. SALES OFFICER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, CHAMPARAN COMMERCIAL AGENCY, BALUA CHOWK, P.S.- MOTIHARI (TOWN), DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 6. BUSINESS MANAGER, SWAGAT RETAIL OUTLET, N.H.-28, PIPRA KOTHI, P.S. PIPRA KOTHI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 7. RAJEEV RANJAN S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD RAMESH FUELING STATION, BETTIAH, P.S.- BETTIAH, TOWN & DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH …………… RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Madhuresh Prasad & A.Kumar, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. K.D. Chatterji, Advocate. ----------- 2. 28.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and 2 learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice published in the daily newspaper dated 11.3.2010 by which the respondent- Indian Oil Corporation has issued an advertisement seeking application for appointment of service provider for providing service on Corporation owned/Corporation operated SWAGAT Retail Outlet at N.H.28, Pipra Kothi, East Champaran at Motihari and also for quashing the selection list dated 1.7.2010 prepared pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner had been appointed as service provider of the aforesaid Company for providing service of corporation owned and Corporation operated retail outlet SWAGAT on the basis of an advertisement published in daily newspaper in the year 2006 pursuant to which the petitioner was found to fulfill the requisite criteria and accordingly the agreement dated 18.9.2006 was executed between the parties. The terms of the said agreement provided that the same would be for a period of five years, i.e., from 18.9.2006 to 17.9.2011; the agreement was terminable by giving one-month’s notice by either party. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such notice has been given to him and thus the action of the authorities is unlawful. It is further submitted by learned counsel that no reason has been assigned by the authorities for cutting short the period for which he has been given the contract. Learned counsel for the respondent, Oil Company points out that earlier also the petitioner had challenged the said action of the authorities by filing CWJC No. 5705/2010 which was dismissed on 30.4.2010 holding that in absence of any final decision having been communicated to the petitioner, the writ petition was premature at that stage. Learned counsel also points out that while the over all period for the work was for five years till 17.9.2011, yet the same was terminable by one month’s notice from either of the parties and thus the petitioner cannot claim any right beyond what has been provided under the contract. It is further submitted by learned counsel that in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition, it has been made clear that the advertisement has been issued pursuant to the policy decision taken by the 4 Government of India laying down the guidelines on the basis of which the appointment of service provider for such corporation owned/Corporation operated retail outlet are to be made and in terms of the directions of the Central Government advertisements have been issued throughout the country for the appointment of service provider for such retail outlet and thus there is no arbitrariness involved in the action of the authorities. On a consideration of the rival submissions this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, Oil Company. It is evident that while the term as per agreement was for five years ending on 17.9.2011 but it also gave right to terminate the agreement by giving one month’s notice. That being the position, it is open to the Corporation to proceed ahead for appointment of fresh service provider in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Government. The mere taking of such action does not give any right to the petitioner. The only right the petitioner can claim is that his agreement should not be terminated without giving one month’s notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show 5 that at any stage termination has yet been ordered by the Corporation. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner can have any grievance against the action of the respondent authorities of the Corporation. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however, made clear that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the authorities pertaining to his agreement, he shall be free to invoke his right under Clause 62 of the agreement pertaining to arbitration. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)