IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.599 of 2010 Date of Decision: 7.5.2010 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ..Appellant versus Kamal Sharma. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate for the appellant ……… MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Promila Nain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of counsel for the parties, CWP No.6574 of 2010 is taken up for hearing. Appellant’s case before learned Single Judge was that the respondent has obtained dealership by playing fraud with the appellant and therefore, no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded. Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 22.3.2010 reads as follows:- “Dear Sir, LPA No.599 of 2010 Sub: Your dealership affairs at M/s Salasar Power Point, Ludhiana The dealership at M/s Salasar Power Point was allotted to you vide our letter dated 29.1.2004. The allotment of the above dealership in your favour was investigated in view of the complaint received against the same and it has been concluded that the dealership selection is in violation of the Govt. guidelines in respect of the multiple dealership norms. In view of the circumstances explained above the dealership stands cancelled and the dealership agreement with you is terminated with immediate effect. You are requested to hand over the possession of the Retail Outlet to the team serving you the termination letter. Yours truly, For Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Sd/- Territory Manager (Retail)- Jalandhar” The writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging the said order on several grounds, but the main ground was violation of the principles of natural justice, in termination of the dealership and that no opportunity was given to the respondent before us, to explain the circumstances sought to be alleged against him. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that such a notice was not given nor it was so contended by the appellant. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service and others, (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 533, to contend that the said judgment supports a view that in view of fraud alleged in allotment of dealership, no principles of natural justice are required to be followed and notice need be given. The aforesaid judgment does not bear out any principles. It only lays down that in case of valid termination of the dealership, compensation should be awarded and not the reinstatement of the dealership. Since the validity of the order itself is assailed before us and 2 LPA No.599 of 2010 it has been contended that interim order has been passed and the matter listed for 31.7.2010, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served if show cause is served within one week from today to the counsel of the respondent. The reply to the said show cause shall be filed within a week thereafter. Appellant thereafter is directed to pass an order after dealing with the pleas raised by the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.3.2010 being clearly in violation of principles of natural justice is set aside. LPA is disposed of whereas the writ petition stands allowed in above terms. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE 07.05.2010 (JASBIR SINGH) gk JUDGE 3