Case: Mohd. Jamal Vs. Union Of India

it has been given a supervisory function to ensure proper distribution of petrol and petroleum products. Mr. Malhotra urged that anything which was not in public interest, but was likely to affect the public interest, cannot be retained and has to be quashed. As will be evident from the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the case of the Appellants and the Writ Petitioners, in most of the cases, is based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel on the basis of a promise apparently made by the Respondents to the land owners that they would be granted dealerships in lieu of the lands offered by them for setting up of the retail outlets. From the facts as disclosed, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that initially negotiations had been conducted by the Oil Companies with aspiring land owners that in lieu of the lease to be granted they would be provided with dealerships. The applications made pursuant to the advertisement published by the Oil Companies were also duly processed and were acted upon. However, it is only the suspension of the Policy dated 8.10.2002, which prevented such dealerships for being given to the various applicants. 56. Upon deregularisation of the distribution of petroleum products, the Oil Companies issued guidelines dealing with the procedure for locations outside the marketing plans. It was also stipulated that for the purpose of selection, the dealerships would be categorised as indicated in the guidelines and all retail outlets would be developed only on A/C sites basis, which finds place in Clause (2) of the guidelines. 57. The said guidelines referred to grant of dealership which is completely different from the grant of long-term leases by the land owners to the Oil Companies upon the condition that the same could be used by the lessees in any way they liked, which included the right to sublet the demised plot. The concept of Company Owned and Company Operated outlets was sought to be introduced on 6.9.2003, in supersession of Policy No.MDPM- 319/02 dated 8.10.2002 and the two cannot be co-related unless a link can be established by the Appellants that they had entered into the lease agreements with the Oil Companies upon the understanding that once the earlier policy was restored, the land owners would be given the option of having the COCO units converted into regular retail outlets. 58. In order to appreciate the difference between the two concepts, it has to be understood that the concept of a dealership in respect of a retail outlet is completely alien to the concept of a COCO unit. While the former deals with the right of the dealer to independently operate the retail outlet, in the case of a COCO unit, the entire set up of the retail outlet is owned by the Oil Companies and only the day-to-day operation thereof is outsourced to a M&H Contractor. With the discontinuance of the earlier policy of granting dealerships in respect of retail outlets and the introduction of a new policy awarding M&H Contracts in respect of the COCO outlets, in our view, the land owners who had entered into fresh lease agreements after the policy to grant dealerships had been suspended, cannot now claim any right on the basis of the earlier policy in the absence of any Letter of Intent having been issued thereunder. Had any Letter of Intent, which tantamounts to grant of dealership, been issued and then in respect of the same lands COCO units were established, the situation would have been different. Placed in such a position, the land owners cannot claim any relief in these proceedings and, if any loss or damages have been suffered by them on account of the assurance earlier given regarding grant of dealership, particularly in making the sites ready therefor, the remedy of such applicants would lie elsewhere. The policy guidelines and, in particular, Clauses 1.2 and 1.2.2 thereof are not available to the Appellants and the Petitioners in these proceedings, which are concerned mainly with COCO units which have no connection with the concept of dealership.59. We are inclined to hold that the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, as canvassed on behalf of the Appellants and the Petitioners, cannot be made applicable to these cases where the leases have been granted by the land owners on definite terms and conditions, without any indication that the same were being entered into on a mutual understanding between the parties that these would be temporary arrangements, till the earlier policy was restored and the claim of the land owners for grant of dealership could be considered afresh. On the other hand, although, the nominees of the lessors were almost in all cases appointed as the M&H Contractors, that in itself cannot, in our view, convert any claim of the land owner for grant of a permanent dealership. As has been indicated hereinbefore, even the M&H Contractor had to submit an affidavit to the effect that he did not have and would not have any claim to the dealership of the retail outlet and that he would not also obstruct the making over possession of the retail outlet to the Oil Company, as and when called upon to do so. The decisions cited on behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners, are not, therefore, relevant for a decision in these cases. Although, the Appeals have been filed on account of the denial to the land owners of the grant of dealership in respect of the lands demised by them to the Oil Companies, the entire focus has shifted to COCO outlets on account of the fresh lease agreements entered into by the Appellants with the Oil Companies which has had the effect of obliterating the claim of the land owners made separately under earlier lease agreements. The claims of the Appellants/Petitioners in the present batch of matters have to be treated on the basis of the agreements subsequently entered into by the Oil Companies, as submitted by the learned Attorney General.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]58. In order to appreciate the difference between the two concepts, it has to be understood that the concept of a dealership in respect of a retail outlet is completely alien to the concept of a COCO unit. While the former deals with the right of the dealer to independently operate the retail outlet, in the case of a COCO unit, the entire set up of the retail outlet is owned by the Oil Companies and only theoperation thereof is outsourced to a M&H Contractor. With the discontinuance of the earlier policy of granting dealerships in respect of retail outlets and the introduction of a new policy awarding M&H Contracts in respect of the COCO outlets, in our view, the land owners who had entered into fresh lease agreements after the policy to grant dealerships had been suspended, cannot now claim any right on the basis of the earlier policy in the absence of any Letter of Intent having been issued thereunder. Had any Letter of Intent, which tantamounts to grant of dealership, been issued and then in respect of the same lands COCO units were established, the situation would have been different. Placed in such a position, the land owners cannot claim any relief in these proceedings and, if any loss or damages have been suffered by them on account of the assurance earlier given regarding grant of dealership, particularly in making the sites ready therefor, the remedy of such applicants would lie elsewhere. The policy guidelines and, in particular, Clauses 1.2 and 1.2.2 thereof are not available to the Appellants and the Petitioners in these proceedings, which are concerned mainly with COCO units which have no connection with the concept of dealership.59. We are inclined to hold that the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, as canvassed on behalf of the Appellants and the Petitioners, cannot be made applicable to these cases where the leases have been granted by the land owners on definite terms and conditions, without any indication that the same were being entered into on a mutual understanding between the parties that these would be temporary arrangements, till the earlier policy was restored and the claim of the land owners for grant of dealership could be considered afresh. On the other hand, although, the nominees of the lessors were almost in all cases appointed as the M&H Contractors, that in itself cannot, in our view, convert any claim of the land owner for grant of a permanent dealership. As has been indicated hereinbefore, even the M&H Contractor had to submit an affidavit to the effect that he did not have and would not have any claim to the dealership of the retail outlet and that he would not also obstruct the making over possession of the retail outlet to the Oil Company, as and when called upon to do so. The decisions cited on behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners, are not, therefore, relevant for a decision in these cases. Although, the Appeals have been filed on account of the denial to the land owners of the grant of dealership in respect of the lands demised by them to the Oil Companies, the entire focus has shifted to COCO outlets on account of the fresh lease agreements entered into by the Appellants with the Oil Companies which has had the effect of obliterating the claim of the land owners made separately under earlier lease agreements. The claims of the Appellants/Petitioners in the present batch of matters have to be treated on the basis of the agreements subsequently entered into by the Oil Companies, as submitted by the learned Attorney General.