IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No. 1369 of 2010 In CWJC No. 17158 of 2007 With I.A. No. 7695 of 2010. ==================================================== 1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 through its Chairman, 2. The Deputy General Manager (RS), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051, 3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Divn., Maurya Lok Complex, 3rd Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001 through its Chief General Manager, 4. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Divn., Maurya Lok Complex, 3rd Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, 5. The Chief Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), Maurya Lok Complex, Patna – 800001, 6. The Deputy General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Maurya Lok Complex, 3rd Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna – 800 001, 7. The Sales Manager, Retail Sales Division, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), B-70, IOC Campus, Begusarai 851211 ……………………………………….…. Respondents - Appellants Versus 1. Rahul Vibhushan, son of Sri Kailash Bihari Choudhary, R/o Village & PO – Bhagatpur, P.S. Balia, District – Begusarai, 2. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001, 3. The Under Secretary of Govt. of India, VIP Cell, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001, ……. ……………………………………………….. Petitioners – Respondents 4. M/s Farm and Auto Fuels (IOC dealer), N.H. 31, Lakhminia, P.S. – Balia, Distriuct – Begusarai, through its Proprietor, namely, Sri Manoj Agrawal, son of Dr. K.D.N. Agrawal, R/o Mungeriganj, PO/PS/District – Begusarai …………………………………. Respondent - Respondent 2 =================================================== APPEARANCE For the appellants: Mr. K.D. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha and Mr. Amlesh Kr. Verma, Advocates. For the respondent no.1: Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh,Advocate For the respondent no.4: Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4. 04.11.2010. With the consent of the learned Advocates, the appeal is decided today. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 17158 of 2007. The matter at dispute is the revival of the retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation petroleum situated on N.H. 31, Lakhminiya, District – Begusarai. It is not in dispute that the dealership of the said retail outlet was awarded to one Sri Manoj Agrawal, the Proprietor of M/s Farm & Auto Fuels, the respondent no. 4 herein. The said Manoj Agrawal ran and managed the said outlet in the name and style of M/s Farm & Auto Fuels till the year 2002. It is an admitted fact that since the month of March 2002 the said retail outlet is not in operation. The said Manoj Agrawal in his effort to revive the said retail outlet decided to take the writ petitioner Sri Rahul Vibhushan as a partner in his firm. To meet that end, on 3 04.07.2003 the said Manoj Agrawal approached the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) for permission to induct the aforesaid Rahul Vibhushan as a partner in his firm. He also indicated that under the proposed partnership he would have 51% share in profit and that the aforesaid Rahul Vibhushan would have the remaining 49% share in profit and would bear the entire loss, if any. Though the proposal was considered by the Corporation favourably, before the required formalities could be completed, the Union Government issued a revised policy on 29.12.2005. Under the said policy the Union Government in its Ministry of Petroleum issued specific instructions as under: “Dealerships / distributorships which are inoperative from a date prior to 1.4.2002 will not be considered for revival. Further dealerships / distributorships remained inoperative for a period of more than three years will not be revived.” Admittedly, as the aforesaid outlet was inoperative since the month of March 2002, in view of the aforesaid instructions the Corporation did not agree to revive the said retail outlet. Nevertheless, the Corporation did correspond with the Union Government to permit revival of the said retail outlet, but to no avail. Consequently, by order dated 15.11.2006 the dealership of aforesaid Manoj Agrawal was terminated. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid Rahul Vibhushan filed the above CWJC No. 17158 of 2007 to 4 challenge the action of the Corporation in terminating the dealership of aforesaid Manoj Agrawal and for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the Corporation to complete the remaining formalities and to permit revival of the aforesaid retail outlet, namely, M/s Farm & Auto Fuels, N.H. 31, Lakhminiya, Begusarai and for other reliefs. The petition was supported by the aforesaid Manoj Agrawal. The Corporation expressed its inability to permit revival of the aforesaid retail outlet on account of the policy of the Union Government. The learned single Judge was, by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2010, pleased to allow the writ petition and to set aside the order dated 15.11.2006 and the subsequent letter dated 10.09.2008 and to direct the Corporation to complete the remaining formalities for revival of the aforesaid retail outlet. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the Corporation had unnecessarily whiled away the time since the application dated 04.07.2003. Had the Corporation completed the necessary formalities for revival of the aforesaid retail outlet within reasonable time, the government instructions dated 29.12.2005 would not have intervened. Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred this appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. K.D. Chatterji has appeared for the Corporation. He has submitted that the Corporation was not at fault. But for the policy of the Union Government, the Corporation would have considered the application for revival of the aforesaid retail 5 outlet favourably; indeed the Corporation did consider the proposal favourably. Even after the policy decision dated 29.12.2005, the Corporation went out of its way to correspond with the Union Government and to permit revival of the aforesaid retail outlet, but to no avail. No fault lay with the Corporation. No direction ought to have been issued to the Corporation. Learned Advocate Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh has appeared for the aforesaid Rahul Vibhushan, the writ petitioner - the respondent no. 1 herein. He has contested the appeal. At the outset, he has submitted that the present appeal by the Corporation is not maintainable. He has submitted that all the while the Corporation considered the application for revival of the retail outlet made by aforesaid Manoj Agrawal favourably and had supported the revival of the said retail outlet. The Corporation, therefore, cannot maintain the appeal against the order of the learned single Judge which is in tune with the plea of the Corporation. He has submitted that though the directions issued are against its policy, the Union Government is not aggrieved as it has not preferred any appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh has next submitted that the aforesaid Rahul Vibhushan, in anticipation of revival of the aforesaid retail outlet purchased the land from its owner Smt. Archana Agrawal, the wife of aforesaid Manoj Agrawal for a sum of Rs. Three lacs. He has submitted that the said Rahul Vibhushan also spent considerable amount on the aforesaid retail outlet at the instance of the Corporation. The 6 Corporation, therefore, is duty-bound to permit revival of the aforesaid retail outlet. We may mention here that though Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh has argued that aforesaid Rahul Vibhushan had spent considerable amount at the instance of the Corporation, the argument is not supported by the pleadings. We have perused the memo of the writ petition. In the writ petition, a specific case of promissory estoppel is not pleaded. It is well settled law that a plea of promissory estoppel is required to be specifically pleaded and established. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the said Rahul Vibhushan altered his position to his detriment on the promise extended by the Corporation. In absence of such a plea, the argument cannot be countenanced. The next question that falls for our consideration is whether the aforesaid Rahul Vibhushan had locus standi to challenge the action of the Corporation in not allowing revival of the aforesaid retail outlet and in terminating the dealership of the aforesaid Manoj Agrawal. If, at all, anybody is aggrieved, that can be the said Manoj Agrawal and not the writ petitioner Sri Rahul Vibhushan. Besides, the said Rahul Vibhushan had no privity of contract with the Corporation or with the aforesaid Manoj Agrawal. May be, he purchased the piece of land in anticipation of a partnership business with the said Manoj Agrawal which never materialized. Mere purchase of the land did not confer locus upon him to challenge the action of the Corporation in respect of the dealership of the said Manoj 7 Agrawal. We are of the opinion that the writ petition at the instance of the said Rahul Vibhushan, was not maintainable. In other words, he had no locus standi to challenge the action of the Corporation. The learned single Judge has erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by the said Rahul Vibhushan. For the aforesaid reasons, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 17158 of 2007 is set aside. CWJC No. 17158 of 2007 is dismissed on the ground of locus standi alone. We clarify that as we are of the opinion that the said Rahul Vibhushan had no locus standi to challenge the action of the Corporation, we did not examine the validity of the order of termination of dealership dated 15.11.2006 and the consequent letter dated 10.09.2008. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )