Madhya Pradesh High Court Shri Krushna Filling Station Thr. Smt. ... vs Union Of India on 27 February, 2020 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE WRIT PETITION NO.3400/2019 (SHRI KRUSHNA FILLING STATION THR. SMT. VIMLA DEVI W/O SHRI SHANTILAL PORWAL (LEGAL HEIR OF SOLE PROP Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS) Indore, Dated : 27022020 Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner . Shri Dilip Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the respondent [CAVEAT]. ORDER Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the action of the respondents, whereby they have initiated the process of allotment of dealership retail outlet on ad hoc basis. The present petition is filed in the name of Shri Krushna Filling Station through Smt. Vimla Devi widow of Shri Shantilal Porwal being a mother of original allottee Late Shri Bharat Porwal. The respondents No.2 & 3 issues an advertisement for allotment of retail outlet. The son of the petitioner got the dealership and DPSL agreement dated 09.10.2014 (Annexure P/1) was executed with the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the oil company has established the retail outlet on the location given by the petitioner i.e Gram Bhatkheda, District Neemuch. The petitioner's son started outlet. On 17.10.2016 the joint inspection was carried out by the team of Quality Control Cells of the respondent No.2/Oil Company wherein certain irregularities were found in the retail outlet and accordingly the same day the supply was suspended and further investigation was carried out to seek OEM and W&M opinion as per Market Discipline Guideline. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 28.04.2018 was issued and the same was replied by vide letter dated 15.05.2018 by Late Bharat Porwal. Bharat Porwal expired on 05.02.2019. The petitioner came to know that the respondents are going to terminate license and agreement and allot the dealership on HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE ad hoc basis for which the interview is scheduled on 15.02.2019 at Indore office. Immediately the petitioner rushed to this Court and filed the present petition on 15.02.2019 which came up for argument on admission and interim relief on the same day. Vide order dated 15.02.2019, this Court has issued the notice to the respondents and restrained the respondents to take final decision in pursuant to Annexure P/4. On 18.02.2019, the respondent No.2 filed a Caveat application No.91/2019 before this Court along with a copy of letter dated 15.02.2019 terminating the DPSL agreement dated 09.10.2014 in pursuant to the show cause notice dated 28.04.2018. The aforesaid notice was addressed to the firm as well as to the mother of Bharat Porwal i.e. Smt. Vimla Devi Porwal but not actually served upon them. The respondents No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed a reply. In the reply respondent raised preliminary objection that as per clause 13(b) of the said agreement; where the licensee being an individual, whether trading in his individual name, dies, this agreement shall stand terminated forthwith on such death of Licensee, therefore, mother of the petitioner has no right to file the present petition as the said agreement has come to an end and on this ground alone petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondents No.2 & 3 have also raised an issue under clause 20(g) of the said agreement (Anneuxre P/1) stating that there is a provision of dispute resolution by way of arbitration. The dealership was allotted to Bharat Porwal on the site which was held by BPCL by way of registered lease for a period of 01.09.2003 to 31.08.2032 from a third party landlord and also BPCL has spent a capital expenditure of Rs.36,72,908/ since 2003. Various serious irregularities were found in the inspection carried out by the Quality Control Cells on 17.10.2016 and Bharat Porwal did not give HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE satisfactory reply, therefore, the company has terminated the dealership and now the ad hoc dealership has been allotted, as per policy of the company. The dealership cannot be transferred in the name of mother of Bharat Porwal as there is no provision in the said policy agreement. The petitioner filed a rejoinder by submitting that there is a provision of appeal under Marketing Discipline Guideline against the termination of the dealership. The petitioner was ready to submit the appeal along with the demand draft of Rs.5 Lakhs but, vide letter date 09.05.2019, the respondent No.2 has declined and has returned the appeal and demand draft as it was submitted beyond the period of 30 days. It is further submitted that petitioner prepared the demand draft of Rs.5 Lakhs within 30 days and submitted the appeal which has wro