IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2371 of 2011 Tirupati Kumar Sinha, son of Late Rampati Kumar Sinha, Resident of Mohalla- A/88 Kankarbagh Housing Colony, P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary Oil and Natural Gas Department, New Delhi. 2. The Indian Oil Corporation through its General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Fraser Road, Patna. 3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Frazer Road, Patna. 4. Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corportion, Block- A, Maurya Lok Complex (3rd Floor) Dakbunglow Road, Patna-1. ……….Respondents. -------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Senior Advocate With Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents(IOC) : Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Senior Advocate With Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate. ---------- 08/ 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i) To quash and cancel the letter reference No. PDO/RS/HFS dated 20.1.2011 issued under the authority and by the seal and signature of Alok Kumar, Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Block-A Mauryalok Complex (3rd floor) Dak Bunglow Road, Patna (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder the representation dated 14.12.2010 filed by the petitioner in the light of direction of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 01.12.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7186 of 2010 has not been considered to the effect of restoration of the retail outlet dealership M/s Harsh Raj Service Station Kumhrar, District-Patna, Bihar (hereinafter called dealership) and thus representation has been rejected by - 2 - confirming the termination order (Annexure-2) of dealership of petitioner. ii) To quash and cancel the termination order bearing PDO/ RS/HFS dated 31.3.2010 (Annexure-2) issued under seal and signature of Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager Indian Oil Corporation, Block-A, Maurya Lok Complex (3rd Floor) Dakbunglow Road, Patna-1. iii) To command the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner squarely on the basis of legal grounds having a pin pointed approach to reinstate/restore the dealership of petitioner by accepting the contents of representations as filed thereto. iv) To grant any other relief(s), direction(s) for which petitioner is entitled to have. 3. It transpires that earlier the petitioner had filed CWJC No.7186 of 2010 challenging Letter no. PDO/RS/HFS dated 31.03.2010 issued by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Patna terminating the dealership of petitioner’s retail outlet at Kumhrar, Patna and for other ancillary reliefs. After hearing both the parties and considering the matter, this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 01.12.2010 quashing the impugned letter of termination dated 31.03.2010 due to absence of proper notice to the petitioner. However, it was observed that copy of the notice in question dated 20.1.2010 had been annexed as Annexure-F to the counter affidavit of the respondents filed in the said writ petition which was served upon learned counsel for the petitioner on 18.05.2010 and hence the petitioner at the time of passing of the said order had full information and knowledge of the said notice. Thus petitioner was directed to submit his reply to the said notice before the Senior - 3 - Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Patna within fifteen days, whereafter the said respondent was directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within one month without being prejudiced by any observation made in that order. 4. It transpires that after the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner filed his representation on 14.12.2010 enclosing affidavits of three people willing to provide an un-secured loan to the petitioner and also providing estimate of sales of H.S.D., M.S and Lubricant from the retail outlet of financial year 2011-12 to 2015-16. 5. After considering the said representation of the petitioner in view of the earlier observations made by this court, the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (MD) rejected petitioner’s representation and confirmed the order of termination of petitioner’s dealership on coming to the following conclusions:- (i) It is evident from our records that you have failed to honour commitments made by you on various occasions in the past, to improve sales from your retail outlet. (ii) Some of these instances are listed below: (iii) Vide your letter reference Pat-1/RS/Harsh Raj S/T dated 27.02.2009, you had stated that you would give better sales after renovation of the retail outlet. However, there was no improvement in sales. (iv) Once again, you failed to honour your commitment and the retail outlet remained - 4 - inoperative. (v) Instead of resuming sales, you once again asked for one-two months time to resume sales from your retail outlet, vide letter dated 15.12.2009. (vi) You still failed to resume sales from the retail outlet till 31.03.2010. (vii) In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept your request for reinstatement of the dealership on the basis of the contents of your letter dated 14.12.2010. (viii) Moreover, in the statement enclosed by you with your letter dated 14.12.2010, it is observed that the sales projections made by you for the financial years 2011-12 to 2015-16 are far lower than that stipulated in clause 10 of the dealership agreement dated 23.02.2009. (ix) It may also be mentioned that as per clause 10 of the dealership agreement dated 23.02.2009, you were required to uplift a minimum quantity of 48 Kls MS, 72 Kls HSD and 1 Kl lubricants/greases per month. However, your upliftment was NIL from July 2009 to March 2010, i.e. for 9 consecutive months.” 6. The said order has been passed by the authorities concerned after considering the records and also as per clause 12 of the agreement dated 23.02.2009. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any material to interfere in such contractual matters. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities for arbitration - 5 - in view of clauses of the agreement and under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Sunil (S.N.Hussain, J.)