Case: Ibp Company Limited and Another Vs. Bal Kishan Mittal

such scheme subsequently, the supply of kerosene to him could not have been discontinued on the basis of policy decision of the Government. In that view of the matter, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge and passed the aforesaid permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff/respondent.6. The appellant-company thereafter preferred a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court but as aforesaid, the said appeal was summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge at the admission stage of hearing. 7. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the plaintiff/respondent was not entitled to a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction compelling the respondent to continue the agency of selling kerosene/LDO in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Even if the agency had been wrongly and unjustly terminated by the appellant-company the plaintiff/respondent was only entitled to damages. The suit as framed being not maintainable in law was liable to be dismissed on that score. That apart, under the terms of the agreement, the agency was liable to be terminated by giving one months notice and admittedly such notice of termination having been given, the plaintiff/respondent was not entitled to continue with the said agency. Mr. Chidambaram has submitted that even without considering the question of maintainability of the suit, the termination of the agency is fully justified on merits because such termination was not made arbitrarily or capriciously but on account of the policy decision taken by the Government of India for reasons indicated hereinbefore. He has submitted that the learned Civil Judge appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case correctly and came to the finding that the plaintiff/respondent was appointed a selling agent of kerosene/LDO under the said MPDC Scheme and in view of the said policy decision, such agency had been terminated and there was no mala fide or lack of fair play on the part of the appellant-company. He has submitted that the learned District Judge misconceived the facts completely and had come to an erroneous finding that the plaintiff/respondent had been appointed a dealer independently but he was brought under the MPDC Scheme in the matter of selling agency of kerosene/LDO subsequently. Such finding, according to Mr. Chidambaram, is contrary to the documents and evidences adduced in the suit. He has further submitted that even assuming that the plaintiff had been brought subsequently under the MPDC Scheme, the appellant-company was quite within it right to terminate the said selling agency because of the change in the policy decision and such policy decision having been made applicable all over India, no exception could be taken. Mr. Chidambaram has contended that unfortunately, the High Court failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and summarily dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. He has submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the suit should be dismissed by setting aside the impugned judgments. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent, however, contended that the policy decision of the Government of India on the basis of which the said termination of supply of kerosene/LDO was sought to be passed by the appellant-company does not cover the case of the plaintiff/respondent. He has submitted that the District Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff/respondent was appointed as a selling agent of kerosene/LDO not under the MPDC Scheme at the initial stage but subsequently he was brought under the said scheme. He has contended that as there was no allegation that the plaintiff/respondent had resorted to any unfair activities by mixing kerosene with petrol or HSD, the appellant-company was not entitled to terminate the said agency and a public undertaking is bound to act fairly and reasonably and cannot terminate the contract arbitrarily or simply on a pleasure doctrine.9. After considering the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully satisfied that the plaintiff/respondent was appointed as a selling agent of kerosene/LDO under the MPDC Scheme. It is not correct to contend that he was appointed as a selling agent of kerosene/LDO not on account of MPDC Scheme but such agency was later on brought under the said scheme. The materials on record clearly establish that the plaintiff/respondent had been given the selling agency and consequential permission to sell kerosene at his aforesaid petrol pump in view of and after the introduction of MPDC Scheme. It also appears to us the there has not been any arbitrary or capricious decision in termination the agency of the plaintiff/respondent and such decision had been taken because of the policy decision of the Government of India on cogent reasons and such decision had been applied to all the selling agents covered by the MPDC Scheme. Under the terms of the agreement the agency was liable to be terminated by giving one months notice and in this case such notice had been given. The learned District Judge had clearly gone wrong in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and granting the reliefs in the suit by way of permanent and mandatory injunction and the High Court was also wrong in dismissing the appeal summarily. It may be mentioned here that our attention has been drawn by Mr. Chidambaram that against the termination of selling agency of kerosene/LDO under similar circumstances, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition moved by the agent. Similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Delhi in dismissing Writ Petition No. 881 of 1986 (Monga Filling Station v. Union of India) moved against termination of the selling agency of kerosene/LDO under similar circumstances. The special leave petition moved against the decision of Allahabad High Court dated August 28, 1990 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8520 of 1986 (Shiv Filling Station v. Indo Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd.) was dismissed by this Court on March 8, 1991.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]9. After considering the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully satisfied that the plaintiff/respondent was appointed as a selling agent of kerosene/LDO under the MPDC Scheme. It is not correct to contend that he was appointed as a selling agent of kerosene/LDO not on account of MPDC Scheme but such agency was later on brought under the said scheme. The materials on record clearly establish that the plaintiff/respondent had been given the selling agency and consequential permission to sell kerosene at his aforesaid petrol pump in view of and after the introduction of MPDC Scheme. It also appears to us the there has not been any arbitrary or capricious decision in termination the agency of the plaintiff/respondent and such decision had been taken because of the policy decision of the Government of India on cogent reasons and such decision had been applied to all the selling agents covered by the MPDC Scheme. Under the terms of the agreement the agency was liable to be terminated by giving one months notice and in this case such notice had been given. The learned District Judge had clearly gone wrong in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and granting the reliefs in the suit by way of permanent and mandatory injunction and the High Court was also wrong in dismissing the appeal summarily. It may be mentioned here that our attention has been drawn by Mr. Chidambaram that against the termination of selling agency of kerosene/LDO under similar circumstances, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition moved by the agent. Similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Delhi in dismissing Writ Petition No. 881 of 1986 (Monga Filling Station v. Union of India) moved against termination of the selling agency of kerosene/LDO under similar circumstances. The special leave petition moved against the decision of Allahabad High Court dated August 28, 1990 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8520 of 1986 (Shiv Filling Station v. Indo Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd.) was dismissed by this Court on March 8, 1991.