Pushpa Singh vs Union of India

Calling in question tenability of an order dated 15.03.10 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 13879/09, this appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 2 of (Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Ke Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Facts in brief goes to show that appellant is the proprietor of a firm named Goldie Gas Agency situated in Khalwara Bazar, Kymore, Distt. Katni.

Petitioner was granted an agency for distribution of L. P. G. cylinders by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for the area in question. However, when the Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement for granting dealership for distribution of L. P. G. cylinders in the area covered by Tahsil Vijayraghavgarh, petitioner objected to the same and came out with a case that under the scheme formulated for grant of L. P. G. dealership vide Annexure P-4 available in the record of the writ petition, once a dealership is in existence in a particular area, then within the range of 15 kms., no further dealership can be granted.

It is argued that as the petitioner''s dealership is in existence, the Indian Oil Corporation cannot grant any dealership to any person within the range of 15 kms. and as the policy of the Central Govt. as contained in Annexure P-4 is violated, indulgence into the matter was sought for. The learned Writ Court found that petitioner is a dealer with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and if the Indian Oil Corporation is also establishing a dealership, petitioner has no right to challenge the same and the challenge made by the petitioner was quashed.

Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the Annexure P-4 available in the record of the writ petition and tried to argue that once the scheme prohibits grant of such a dealership, respondents are duty-bound to follow the same and cannot grant any dealership contrary to the aforesaid stipulation in the scheme.

Shri Aditya Adhikari refuted the aforesaid and referred to the agreement executed by the petitioner and argued that in the agreement executed by the petitioner itself, the petitioner had agreed that he shall have no objection in the matter of grant of dealership to any other person.

Referring to Clause 1 (b) (ii) of the agreement Annexure P-3, Shri Aditya Adhikari says that once the petitioner has agreed to the same, he cannot have any grievance in the matter. That apart, Shri Aditya Adhikari points out that similar challenge made has already been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in W.A. No. 114/14 and, therefore, no indulgence can be made in the matter.

We have considered the rival contentions and we find that the same question has been considered by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 114/14 in the case of Maa Narmada Indane Vs. Union of India and others and similar challenge has been rejected in the following manner:-

The Writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was no condition in the agreement with the appellant that no other person should be granted dealership of LPG. Petitioner/appellant was granted the dealership of LPG under a contract. Except the appellant is running the dealership in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot challenge the action of the respondent-Company to grant dealership to other person on the ground that it would affect his business interest.

In our opinion, the Writ Court has rightly exercised discretion. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.

We find the aforesaid decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench to be applicable in the present case also and we see no reason to take a different view. That apart, under Clause 1 (b) (ii) of the agreement entered into by the petitioner and M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., petitioner has accepted for the following conditions :-

(ii) The Corporation reserves the right, without any reference to or consent of the Distributor, to appoint one or more additional distributors in the same territory referred to in Clause 1(a) above and such additional distributor or distributors shall be entitled to make sales of Bharatgas in the same territory without any objection from the Distributor and the Distributor shall not be entitled to claim any over-riding remuneration, commission or allowance for the purpose.

Once, it is the condition agreed to by the petitioner, she cannot turn around from this condition and seek benefit contrary to the agreement entered into by her. As far as the policy Annexure P-4 is concerned, it is a policy formulated by the Government of India and the same is a non-statutory scheme in the form of guidelines and policy, it is not enforceable by a writ of mandamus and we see no reason to interfere into the matter in the facts of the present case.

Accordingly, finding no error in the order passed by the learned Writ court warranting reconsideration, the writ appeal is therefore dismissed.