IBP COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BAL KISHAN MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Pursuant to the notice issued on the special leave petition out of which this appeal arises the respondent has appeared through a counsel and counter-affidavit has been filed. This appeal is directed against the decision dated 18/05/1992 passed by a single bench of the High court of Punjab and Haryana in R. S. A. No. 228 of 1992 by which the said appeal preferred by the appellants was summarily dismissed at the stage of admission. The said R. S. A. No. 228 of 1992 arose out of a decision passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, on 26/08/1991 in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1991 whereby the said appeal was allowed and Civil Suit No. 468 of 1985 was decreed by the learned District Judge. The respondent filed the said Civil Suit No. 468 of 1985 for permanent and mandatory injunction directing the defendants in the said suit who are the appellants in this appeal to the effect that the said defendants should not give effect to the order contained in the letter No. 0. 17 (a) , dated 29/04/1986 by which a decision was taken to discontinue the supply of kerosene/ldo to the said plaintiff/respondent with effect from 1/06/1986 and not to reduce the monthly quota of kerosene to the plaintiff and to restore the quota of kerosene/ldo. The case of the respondent was inter alia that the said plaintiff/respondent was appointed by the appellant- company M/s IBP Company Ltd. as the selling agent of kerosene/ldo at the plaintiff's petrol pump by letter dated 28/02/1977 situated at , Dadri-Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri. The plaintiff contended that after obtaining such agency and the consequential licence for selling the kerosene/ldo from District Food and Supplies Controller, Bhiwani, in 1977, the plaintiff had been carrying on the said business by getting the said licence renewed from time to time and constructing necessary godown and underground storage tank. The Regional Manager of M/s Indo Burma Company Ltd. by his letter dated April 29, 1986 informed the plaintiff that as it had been decided as a matter of policy to withdraw/discontinue the supply of kerosene/ldo to all the petrol pumps selected by them under Multi-purpose Distribution Centre Scheme (MPDC) , the supply of kerosene/ldo to the plaintiff should be discontinued from 1/06/1986. Hence, the plaintiff had to institute the said suit for permanent and mandatory injunction so that the defendantscould not discontinue supply or reduce the quota of kerosene being supplied to the plaintiff.

(3.) Such suit was contested by the appellants by filing a written statement and it was inter alia contended that the government of India formulated the MPDC Scheme in the year 1975 under 20 point programme with an objective to bring essential commodities like cement, cloth, medicines, kerosene, fertilizers etc. under one roof and within accessible reach of the public in backward/rural areas of the country at controlled prices. The government of India through the Ministry of Petroleum, vide its letter dated 14/01/1976, directed the oil companies to engage and/or bring within the fold of the MPDC Scheme its retail outlet dealers situated in the rural areas. Pursuant to such policy of the government of India and the directions received by the oil companies, the appellant-company required the plaintiff/respondent to fulfil certain conditions in order to get permission to operate MPDC outlet. The appellant-company wrote letters to the plaintiff/respondent on 1/11/1976 and on 24/01/1977 in respect of implementation of the said MPDC Scheme and finally permitted the said respondent to sell kerosene/ldo from its said Petrol Pump at Dadri-Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri under the MPDC Scheme by letter dated 18/02/1977 and appointed the respondent as the kerosene/ldo agent of the appellant company. Being appointed as an agent, the respondent had obtained the necessary licence for selling kerosene and also for storage of kerosene/ldo. It is the case of the appellant-company that subsequently the government of India was of the view that giving dealership of kerosene/ldo and HSD under one roof and at the same outlet had increased the possibility of adulteration of HSD and petrol with kerosene because kerosene was much cheaper and a colourless commodity and almost undetectable to the naked eye when mixed with HSD and petrol unless subjected to laboratory tests. With a view to avoid the possibility of adulteration of HSD and petrol with kerosene, government of India as a matter of policy, withdrew distribution from the MPDC Scheme, vide Ministry's letter dated May 21/22, 1982 and the Ministry directed the appellant-company to stop supply of kerosene to its dealers under the MPDC Scheme. In view of such direction of the government of India, all the oil companies withdrew the supply of kerosene to all their dealers all over India who had been appointed under the MPDC Scheme. It was for this reason that the appellant-company informed the plaintiff/respondent that the supply of kerosene/ldo would be discontinued with effect from 1/06/1986. It was also contended that under Clause 7 of the agreement, agency of kerosene/ldo could be terminated by either parties by giving not less than one month's written notice for termination and that since the notice was served on the plaintiff/respondent on 19/04/1986, the plaintiff/respondent was not entitled to the relief of permanent andmandatory injunction and the suit was liable to be dismissed on that score alone.