AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Dhar, J
The petitioner has challenged order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu(hereinafter to be referred as the appellate court), whereby in an appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 08.02.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Munsiff (Forest Magistrate), Jammu, the said order has been upheld and the appeal has been dismissed.
It appears that the petitioner filed a suit before the court of 1st Additional Munsiff (Forest Magistrate), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents restraining them from appointing any distributor for the area allotted to the petitioner in Channi Himmat and surrounding areas of Sainik Colony, Sunjwah, Bathindi, Birpur, Greater Kailash and Kunjwani, Jammu with a further injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the functioning of smooth distribution of LPG cylinders by the petitioner.
As per averments made in the plaint, the petitioner was appointed as a distributor of cooking gas (LPG) in the year 1986 for Srinagar for a period of 20 years. It seems that the petitioner migrated to Jammu and he surrendered his dealership for Srinagar areas and he was appointed as distributor for LPG cylinders by the respondent- petroleum company for Channi Himmat, Jammu which included Sainik Colony, Sunjwan, Bathindi, Birpur, Greater Kailash and Kunjwani. This was done in terms of communication No. REF-JLRO/VII-31 dated 27.02.2003. The petitioner executed the necessary documents and as per the terms of the dealership agreement, the distributorship of the petitioner was effective till 13.12.2016. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that his unit was catering 4000 to 4500 cylinders per month in the area. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that as per the decision taken on 03.10.2006 in the tripartite meeting of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, the petroleum companies and All India LPG Distributors Federation, no additional dealership could have been granted for the areas regarding which dealership had already been granted by the respondents but the respondents in breach of the aforesaid decision taken in tripartite meeting held on 03.10.2006, initiated process for appointing another dealer for the area of operation of the petitioner.
It seems that initially learned trial court vide its order dated 02.06.2009 passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner but ultimately after hearing the parties, the learned trial court vide its order dated 08.02.2016 dismissed the application for grant of interim injunction filed by the petitioner and interim order dated 02.06.2009 was vacated. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of an appeal before the learned appellate court and the appeal has been dismissed by the said court vide the impugned order dated 28.02.2017.
The petitioner through the medium of the instant petition has called in question both the aforesaid orders on the grounds that as per the policy decision taken in terms of tripartite agreement dated 03.10.2006, no appointment of new distributorship could be made, but the learned courts below have ignored this aspect of the matter and relied upon the terms of the agreement dated 27.02.2003. According to the petitioner, the terms of the aforesaid agreement stood modified/changed by subsequent tripartite agreement dated 10.02.2006 but the learned courts below have not taken note of this development. It has further been contended that the courts below have brushed aside the guidelines of the year 2016 which governed the allotment of distributorship of LPG. It is contended that the respondent-corporation being fully owned by the Central Government, as such, it has to act reasonably and in public interest so as to avoid creation of a situation where pre existing dealers are put to unreasonable treatment.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court as well as the impugned order passed by the appellate court.
Before dealing with the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, it would be apt to understand the scope of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which has been invoked by the petitioner to assail the order of the appellate court. The legal position regarding the scope of power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is by now settled. As per the position of law laid down by various judicial precedents the said power has to be used in exceptional circumstances in the larger public interest. Exercise of such a power cannot be justified on a drop of a hat. The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an apparent error on the face of the record much less an error of law. The High Court cannot review or re-appreciate the material upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed the order. While exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should not act as an appellate court or tribunal. It has also been noted that the High Court does not interfere unless there is an infraction of a statute or it serves the promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position as regards the scope of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, let us know proceed to analyse the facts and the contentions projected by the petitioner in the instant petition.
The star ground of the petitioner for assailing the orders of the courts below is that certain decisions were taken in the tripartite meeting held between the representatives of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, representatives of petroleum companies and the representatives of All India LPG Distribution Federation on 03.10.2006 and in this meeting, it was decided that there shall be no appointment of new distributors. On this ground it has been contended that it was not open to the respondents to appoint new distributors in the area of operation of the petitioner.
If we have look at the document (annexure-H) to the writ petition, which the petitioner claims to contain decisions arrived at tripartite meeting dated 03.10.2006, it is revealed that the said document is a gist of issues that were raised in the tripartite meeting held between the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, oil industry and All India LPG Distributors Federation. One of the issues raised in the said meeting is appointment of new distributors, regarding which it is recorded that appointment of new distributors must be stopped forthwith. The document does not relate to decisions taken in the meeting. It is only a record of the issues raised in the meeting. Thus, the same does not have any binding effect on the parties. As against this, agreement dated 27.02.2003 which governs the terms and conditions of grant of distributorship to petitioner, contains a clear cut covenant, whereby respondent-corporation has reserved the right to appoint one or more additional dealers in the same territory in which a dealer has been appointed without the consent of the dealer. The petitioner derives its status as a dealer from the terms of this agreement. He cannot accept some of the terms of the agreement and resile from others which are not favourable to him. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the minutes of the tripartite agreement modified the agreement executed by the petitioner with the respondent-corporation, is without any substance.
Coming to the Unified Guidelines for selection of LPG distributors which has been published in June, 2016, the said guidelines do not put any fetters upon the oil companies to allot distributorship to more than one person in a particular area. Even otherwise, these guidelines have come into effect only in June, 2016, whereas the petitioner was allotted the dealership in March, 2003 when these guidelines were not in-force. The terms and conditions of the distributorship of the petitioner have to be governed by the covenants of the agreement dated 27.02.2003, and not by any other document.
That takes us to the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-corporation being an instrumentality of the State is expected to act fairly and not to the prejudice of the petitioner. In this regard, it is to be noted that though respondent-corporation is a public sector company, yet relationship between the respondents and the petitioner is purely of commercial nature and the said relationship has to be governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement between them. Merely because as per the terms of the agreement between the parties, the respondent-corporation is entitled to allocate LPG distributorship to more than one person in a particular area, does not make action of respondent- corporation unreasonable or unfair. The petitioner does not have any legal right or even a legitimate expectation to injunct the respondent-corporation from appointing more than one distributor in a particular area.
In view of foregoing discussion, it cannot be stated that the courts below have either exceeded their jurisdiction or committed any illegality much less a gross illegality while passing the impugned orders. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.