AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Petitioner Company is a third party seeking review of the judgment dated 5.1.2023 rendered in CWP No. 7816 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by present respondent No.4 (Sh. Tejinder Goyal) was allowed with the following directions:-
“For all the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this petition. The same is accordingly allowed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to take further steps in terms of Letter of Intent
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. issued to the petitioner on 05.07.2021 (Annexure P-6). Depending upon petitioner’s completing the requisite formalities to the satisfaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Letter of Appointment for COCO Retail Outlet at Nalagarh, District Solan, be issued in his favour. The entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”
The review petitioner Company’s case is that during pendency of the writ petition, it was selected as adhoc dealer by the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for the retail outlet involved in the writ petition. The appointment letter/order, in this regard, containing the terms and conditions was issued to it on 03.01.2022 (Annexure P-5). In terms of the order dated 03.01.2022, petitioner’s selection/engagement as an adhoc dealer was for a period of one year, extendable to another one year with a further stipulation that its ad hoc appointment was to last till the appointment of regular dealer and also subject to termination by either party giving 15 days’ written notice. The review petitioner further submits that the duration of its tenure to operate as an adhoc dealer for the retail outlet in question though ended on 03.01.2023, however, the respondent-Oil Corporation permitted it to continue to operate the retail outlet even in the month of January, 2023. That under the circumstances, the review petitioner bonafidely assumed that respondent-Oil Corporation has allowed it to run the retail outlet & extended the period of its operation by one year and with that assumption, the review petitioner continued to sell petroleum products on credit as per usual practice. It has sold petroleum products on credit worth Rupees two crores. The amount is yet to be recovered by it. The grievance of the review petitioner is that in compliance to the judgment dated 05.01.2023, the respondent-Oil Corporation has sent an e-mail to it on 20.02.2023 directing it to hand over the possession of retail outlet before 01.03.2023. It has been contended that handing over of retail outlet, at this stage, will cause financial loss to the review petitioner, as it will not be in a position to recover the amount, for which it has already sold the products on credit. Accordingly, prayer has been made for reviewing the judgment.
Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner very fairly submitted that there is no error apparent in the judgment dated 05.01.2023. He, however, submitted that to enable the review petitioner to recover the amount given by it on credit to others, the enforcement of the judgment be deferred by one year. This according to learned Senior Counsel will enable the review petitioner to operate the retail outlet for a further period of one year or such lesser period by which it will be able to recover the amount given by it on credit in form of sale of petroleum products. He further urged following specific points in support of his prayers:
i). Review petitioner was not a party to the writ petition;
ii). The action of the respondents in directing the review petitioner to hand over the possession of retail outlet is contrary to the terms and conditions of its appointment/engagement, as written notice of 15 days’ as envisaged in the office order dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure P-5) was not issued to the review petitioner;
iii). The appointment of the review petitioner as adhoc dealer to operate the retail outlet in question was extendable by one year, hence the implementation of the judgment dated 05.01.2023 should be deferred by a year.
iv). Review petitioner’s right to recover the amount worth Rupees two crores will be seriously prejudiced in case implementation of the judgment dated 05.01.2023 is not deferred by one year;
Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner and on going through the case file, we are not inclined to entertain the review petition. This is for the following reasons:
4(a). Non-impleadment of the review petitioner in the writ petition.
Writ petition was preferred by Shri Tejinder Goyal (present respondent No.4) with the averments that he had participated in the regular selection process carried out by the respondent-Oil Corporation for engagement of service provider for its corporation owned & corporation controlled retail outlet at Nalagarh, District Solan; Despite remaining successful in the selection process, despite having been issued the letter of intent on 05.07.2021 and despite completing all the requisite formalities at his end, the respondent-Oil Corporation had not issued him the letter of appointment. After finding merit in the contention of the writ petitioner, his petition was allowed on 05.01.2023. It is not the case of the review petitioner that it had participated along with the writ petitioner in the regular selection process conducted by the respondent-Oil Corporation. In fact, it is the pleaded case of the review petitioner that it was selected only as adhoc dealer, vide office order dated 03.01.2022. The review petitioner was appointed as adhoc dealer on 03.01.2022 i.e. after the selection of writ petitioner as a regular dealer on 05.07.2021. Selection process of regular dealer was the subject matter of the writ petition. The order dated 03.01.2022 engaging the review petitioner as adhoc dealer clearly states that the review petitioner had consented to operate the said retail outlet purely on temporary basis till the time the regular dealer gets appointed. Further such adhoc arrangement was to remain in force for a period of one year commencing from 03.01.2022 or till the appointment of a regular dealer or till terminated earlier by the Oil Corporation, hence we do not find any force in the contention of the review petitioner that the judgment dated 05.01.2023 requires to be reviewed on the ground that it was passed behind the back of the review petitioner. Review petitioner was not required to be impleaded in the writ petition. It was not at all affected by the reliefs prayed for by the writ petitioner. Even otherwise, as observed earlier, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner has candidly stated that there is no error apparent in the judgment sought to be reviewed.
4(b). Requirement of giving 15 days’ written notice.
Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner next contended that taking shelter of the judgment dated 05.01.2023, the respondent-Oil Corporation has directed the review petitioner to hand over the possession of retail outlet. That this could not be done as requisite 15 days’ written notice was not issued to the review petitioner. We are not impressed by this argument. It will be appropriate to extract the relevant Clauses from the office order dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure P-5) appointing the petitioner as adhoc dealer for the retail outlet:
“2. Please refer discussion we had with you on dt. 20.12.2021 at Shimla when you consented to operate the said retail outlet purely on a temporary basis till such time we area in a position to appoint a regular dealer;
Accordingly, we hereby appoint you as a temporary Dealer to operate the said outlet solely on temporary basis subject to termination by either party giving to the other 15 days written notice in that behalf;
The said arrangement shall remain in force for a period of one year commencing from dated 3.1.2022 or till appointment of a regular dealer or till terminated earlier by the Corporation as hereinafter stated. If felt necessary, this said arrangement can be renewed at the sole discretion of the Corporation for a period of another one year.”
The order appointing the petitioner as adhoc dealer (Annexure P-5) clearly stipulates that the review petitioner had itself consented to operate the retail outlet purely on temporary basis till the appointment of regular dealer by the Oil Corporation. The office order dated 03.01.2022 contemplates a situation where the temporary dealership could be terminated even prior to the timelines indicated in the said order by either party giving to the other 15 days’ written notice. The temporary dealership tenure was to remain in force for a period of one year commencing from 03.01.2022 or till the appointment of regular dealer or till terminated earlier by the Oil Corporation as hereinafter stated. On appointment of regular dealer, the adhoc dealership of review petitioner was liable to be terminated even during currency of one year period i.e. prior to 03.01.2023 and even during the extended period, had there been any after 03.01.2023.
It is not the grievance of the review petitioner that his adhoc dealership period was terminated by the respondent-Oil Corporation prior to the period of one year, hence 15 days’ written notice was not required to be issued to the review petitioner by the respondent-Oil Corporation. In any case this cannot hold ground for review of the judgment dated 05.01.2023. These independent assertions have no bearing upon the points adjudicated in the writ petition. We have made some ancillary observations on the assertions only because the submission has been strongly stressed by learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner, in support of his prayer for deferring the implementation of the judgment dated 05.01.2023.
4(c). Extension of the period for serving as ad hoc dealer to recover the amount lent on credit in form of petroleum products.
Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner submitted that in terms of the policy of the respondent-Oil Corporation, the period of adhoc dealership could be extended by one year on satisfactory performance of the dealer. It was submitted that the review petitioner has been satisfactorily operating the retail outlet from 03.01.2022 onwards. The review petitioner had requested in writing to the respondent-Oil Corporation for extending its period of operating the retail outlet by one more year. That such representation was not rejected by the respondent-Oil Corporation, rather the review petitioner was permitted to run the retail outlet beyond 03.01.2023. Its inspection was carried out by the respondent-Oil Corporation on 31.01.2023, hence the review petitioner bonafidely assumed that the period of its adhoc dealership shall be extended by one year from 03.01.2023 and accordingly lent petroleum products worth Rupees two crores (approximately) on credit. Review petitioner will suffer immensely in case it is not allowed to run the retail outlet for a further period of one year as it will not be in a position to recover the amount given on credit.
We do not find these submissions to be within the four corners of law, which could entail reviewing the judgment dated 05.01.2023. We may also observe that it is not the case of the review petitioner that tenure of its adhoc dealership was ever extended by the respondent-Oil Corporation beyond 03.01.2023. Clause 6 of the order dated 03.01.2022 engaging the review petitioner as adhoc dealer for a period of one year (i.e. upto 03.01.2023) though states that said arrangement can be renewed at the sole discretion of the Corporation for a period of another one year, however, it is not the case of the review petitioner that it was actually extended by one year. Mere making of representation by the review petitioner for extension of its adhoc dealership period cannot be construed to be automatic or deemed acceptance by the respondent-Oil Corporation for extending the adhoc dealership period. There has to be specific order in that regard. It is admitted case of the review petitioner that no specific order for extending the period of its adhoc dealership was ever issued by the respondent-Oil Corporation. So far as issue of alleged lending of the petroleum products worth Rupees two crores on credit is concerned, suffice to note that the review petitioner was very well aware of the terms and conditions of its engagement as an adhoc dealer. It was aware that such adhoc dealership was to continue only for a period of one year commencing from 03.01.2022 or till the appointment of a regular dealer or till terminated earlier by respondent-Oil Corporation. Lending of any material worth Rupees two crores (approximately) on credit as alleged was at the risk and peril of the review petitioner. This again, cannot be a ground to review the judgment. In exercise of its limited review jurisdiction, the Court cannot extend the period of adhoc dealership of the review petitioner, which had already come to an end on 03.01.2023. In case the review petitioner has been given some assurance by the respondent-Oil Corporation, then it is a matter between the review petitioner and the respondent- Oil Corporation. For that review petitioner will be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy against the respondent-Oil Corporation. We leave the matter at that without making further observations in this regard.
Conclusion.
5(i). There is no error apparent on the face of record. Learned Senior Counsel for the third party review petitioner company has also fairly conceded this position.
5(ii). The grounds urged for reviewing the judgment dated 05.01.2023 to the limited extent of seeking deferment of its enforcement, do not fall within the four corners of law permitting the review of the judgment.
5(iii). In terms of its engagement order dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure P-5), the adhoc tenure of the review petitioner for operating the retail outlet was for a period of one year that ended on 03.01.2023. It is not the case of the review petitioner that period of its adhoc tenure was curtailed or extended by the respondent- Oil Corporation. In fact, the order dated 03.01.2022 states that adhoc/temporary dealership of the review petitioner was to last for a period of one year subject to termination by either party by giving 15 days’ written notice or till regular dealer gets appointed. The judgment dated 05.01.2023, pertained to regular selection of the dealer for the retail outlet wherein the review petitioner did not participate.
5(iv). For the limited purpose of examining the merits of review petitioner’s contentions for reviewing the judgment dated 05.01.2023, we have examined the same in para 4 above vis-a-vis terms of its engagement as an adhoc dealer of retail outlet, set out in office order dated 03.01.2023 (Annexure P-5). The contentions so advanced, lack merit and do not make out any legal or permissible ground for reviewing the judgment dated 05.01.2023 whereby the writ petition filed by present respondent No.4( Sh. Tejinder Goyal) was allowed. The review petitioner, however, is at liberty to raise its substantive issues, if any, in an appropriate legal proceeding, in accordance with law.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.