IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 409 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 25, 2009 S.K.Soni ....Petitioner Versus Jabarjang Singh Brar .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent in person with Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) A company owned company operated (COCO) retail outlet at village Bir Badhni, was allotted by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), to the respondent to operate the said outlet on purely temporary adhoc arrangement till the appointment of a regular dealer. The arrangement was terminated by the Corporation vide letter dated 24.10.2007. This action was challenged by the respondent by filing CWP No. 16936 of 2007, which came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 5.8.2008 when the same was dismissed as not pressed on the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent then filed C.M. No. 15963 of 2008 for revival of the writ petition and for recalling of the order dated 5.8.2008. This application came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 26.8.2008 when after hearing C.O.C.P. No. 409 of 2009 -2- learned counsel for the parties at length, the Bench came to a conclusion that the application filed by the respondent was wholly misconceived as according to the Bench the respondent had been granted temporary permission to operate the retail outlet pending allotment of outlet on regular basis and by such arrangement, no right came to be created in favour of the respondent, which required protection from the Court. The application was, accordingly, dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent challenged the order dated 26.8.2008 passed by this Court in the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing an SLP, which was, however, dismissed in limine on 19.9.2008. Thereafter, attempts were made by the Corporation officials to take the possession of the retail outlet from the respondent but on account of willful disobedience and intentional opposition of the respondent, all efforts failed. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the respondent be summoned and punished for committing contempt of the order dated 26.8.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Reply has been filed by the respondent today in the Court, which is taken on record and a copy thereof supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the reply would reveal that the respondent has specifically denied the allegations made by the petitioner. It is also averred by the respondent that there is no writ, order or direction to the respondent or in favour of the Corporation, which required compliance from him and, therefore, no contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of C.O.C.P. No. 409 of 2009 -3- Courts Act, 1971 was made out against the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition as well as reply filed by the respondent. It is an admitted fact that to await the appointment of a regular dealer, the Corporation had asked the respondent to operate 'COCO' outlet at village Bir Badhni. According to the petitioner, Rupinder Minhas had given his consent letter dated 23.10.2007 to accept the handing over of COCO retail outlet at Bir Badhni, and, therefore, selected as a regular dealer by letter dated 2.11.2007. He had to be handed over the possession of the outlet for running the same. Consequently, the dealership of the respondent was terminated vide letter dated 24.10.2007. The respondent challenged the order of termination of the dealership by filing a writ petition, which was finally dismissed on 5.8.2008 as not pressed on the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent. An application was moved thereafter, by the respondent for revival of the writ petition by recalling the order dated 5.8.2008. This application was dismissed by the division Bench of this Court on 26.8.2008 on the ground that it was wholly misconceived as on account of grant of temporary permission to the respondent to operate the retail outlet pending allotment of outlet on regular basis, no right came to be created in favour of the respondent, which required protection from the Court. The respondent also challenged the order dated 26.8.2008 by filing an SLP which was, however, dismissed on 19.9.2008. Though there was no writ, order or direction from any Court requiring the respondent to vacate the retail outlet so that the dealer who was C.O.C.P. No. 409 of 2009 -4- regularly appointed could be handed over the possession, yet on account of dismissal of the writ petition of the respondent as not pressed and also the application for revival of the writ petition besides an SLP, the act of the petitioner-Corporation in getting the possession from the respondent regarding the retail outlet and handing it over to Rupinder Minhas, who had been appointed as a regular dealer obtained the colour of an order passed by the Court. Once such an order had been passed which required the respondent to vacate the retail outlet so that the Corporation may hand over to Rupinder Minhas, the action of the respondent in not handing over the possession of the retail outlet to the Corporation amounted to contempt of the order passed by this Court. The act of the respondent in not handing over the possession of the retail outlet to the Corporation and its officials make him liable for being punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as he has willfully, intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court dated 5.8.2008 when writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed, order dated 26.8.2008 when the application of the respondent for revival of his writ petition was dismissed and also the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the SLP of the respondent. After obtaining instructions from the respondent, learned counsel representing him states that the respondent shall surrender the possession of the retail outlet to the Corporation and its officials within one week from today. However, it is stated that the Corporation be required to settle the accounts with the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after obtaining instructions C.O.C.P. No. 409 of 2009 -5- from Vijay Kansal, Executive Sales Officer, Jalandhar, states that the Corporation is ready and willing to settle all the claims/bills already submitted by the respondent. He also assures the Court that the Corporation shall also buy back any stock of the Corporation available at the retail outlet and reimburse the costs thereof to the respondent, if any. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by granting a week's time to the respondent from 26.3.2009 to hand over the possession of the retail outlet to the Corporation and its officials. In case any claim/bill already submitted by the respondent has not been settled so far, the Corporation shall settle the same within four weeks from today. The Corporation shall also buy back all the stock in possession of the respondent at the retail outlet and belonging to the Corporation and reimburse the costs thereof to the respondent within ten days from today. The respondent is also directed that after he hands over the possession of the retail outlet to the Corporation and its officials, he shall not interfere in the running of the same by Rupinder Minhas. In case the respondent creates any obstruction in the running of the retail outlet by Rupinder Minhas, the petitioner-Corporation and/or Rupinder Manhas shall be at liberty to bring it to the notice of Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, who shall then proceed in accordance with law. Besides, the petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 25, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1