K. ANANTHAMURTHY Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI, BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGAR (RETAIL) NEAR DEVANAGUNT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1133 of 2003 dated 22nd January 2007, is questioned in this appeal. The petitioner was granted a dealership to run the petrol bunk and to deal with the petroleum products supplied by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner, his father was running a petrol bunk since 1939 in the name and style of Snaize & Company under an agreement with M/s. Burma Shell Company, which was later taken over by the second respondent. Later on, a separate agreement was entered into between the appellant and the second respondent on 30th August 1976. On the ground that in the year 2002 the second respondent launched a scheme known as "Pure for Sure", one Anil Satyam, Sales Officer of the second respondent, started demanding money from the appellant on a periodical basis. Since the appellant refused to comply with the demand made by Sri Anil Satyam, he created problems and subsequently the agreement entered into between the appellant and the second respondent was terminated even without issue of any show -cause notice. This order was questioned by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The second respondent contested the case and filed detailed objections on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same cannot be entertained having regard to the contract. It was also contended by the second respondent that false and frivolous allegations are made against Anil Satyam. On the contrary, the appellant was not running the petrol bunk in terms of the agreement. The appellant was not financially sound and all the cheques issued by him towards the supply made by the second respondent were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. Right from the year 1999, the second respondent was corresponding with the appellant requesting the appellant to run the petrol bunk in terms of the agreement and every time the appellant was committing a mistake in not honouring the cheques issued by him towards the supply of petroleum products made by the second respondent. It is the case of the second respondent that the agreement entered into between the appellant and the second respondent came to be terminated by its order dated 1st January 2003 wherein a detailed order has been passed, which runs to twelve pages. In page six of the order, the second respondent has referred to several correspondences which have taken place between the appellant and the respondent, wherein it discloses that the appellant was not financially sound in running the petrol bunk and all the cheques issued by him from 1999 onwards till November 2002, were dishonoured and in all the letters the second respondent has brought to the notice of the appellant that agreement would be cancelled if the business is not run in terms of the agreement. The impugned order further discloses that on account of financial difficulties, the appellant was not purchasing petroleum products. Both the petrol and diesel tanks were dry on innumerable days and details of the same are also given at pages 8 and 9 of the impugned order. At page nine of the impugned order, it is also stated that there is failure on the part of the appellant in not reaching the sales target. Considering the cumulative conduct of the appellant, the agreement came to be terminated. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the petition. However, he has also given liberty to the appellant to approach the respondent and a direction to the respondent, to consider case of the appellant for grant of fresh dealership, if he is able to show that he is financially sound and is having sufficient capital to run the business smoothly. Being not satisfied with the relief granted to the appellant by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is preferred.

(2.) SRI S. Subhash, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the termination of agreement is bad in law, as no reasonable opportunity was given and no show -cause notice was issued to the appellant before cancelling the agreement. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. Allied Motors Ltd. v. M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. reported in 2012 AIR SCW 513; in the case of Mahabir Auto Stores and others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others, AIR 1990 SC 1031 ; and in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2120 . On a perusal of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have no hesitation that while terminating the agreement, an opportunity should be given to the person who was running the dealership. But, in the instant case, the appellant is not entitled for such a remedy, because, right from the year 1999 the appellant was not running the petrol bunk in terms of the agreement. The petrol bunk was dry on innumerable days, which is referred to by us in the preceding paragraphs. On account of non -purchase of petroleum products by the appellant and non -running of the service station properly, the order, terminating the agreement, has been served. The purpose of establishing the petrol bunk is to serve the people who are in need of petroleum products. We can understand if the petrol bunk is closed on a few occasions, for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant. But, the appellant's petrol bunk was regularly closed on account of non -purchasing of the petroleum products since the appellant was required to pay the money in advance and purchase the same. On many occasions, the cheques issued by the appellant towards the purchase of petroleum products were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. At all times, the second respondent had to make correspondence with the appellant by bringing the same to the notice of the appellant. Considering the conduct of the appellant in not making the payment and not honouring the cheques issued by him and also not running the petrol bunk in terms of the agreement, the dealership was terminated. When several opportunities were given to the appellant right from the year 1999 till 2002, and when the appellant is unable to run the business smoothly by investing the required capital; and if the appellant is incapable of investing the funds to run the business, it is not open for the appellant to contend that he has not been heard in the matter and no show -cause notice is issued to him. Several reminders or notices issued by the second respondent would constitute a show -cause notice. Considering the conduct of the appellant in not running the business properly and in terms of the agreement and when the appellant is unable to run the business due to his financial difficulties and even when he is unable to mobilise the funds, still, it is not open for the appellant to contend that he has not been heard in the matter. Therefore, on facts of the case on hand, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, have no reliance. In addition to that, the learned Single Judge had given liberty to the appellant establish his financial stability or viability before the second respondent and also directed the respondent to consider the case of the appellant for renewing the licence. The order of the learned Single Judge is dated 22nd January 2007. Even five and a half years after the said judgment, the appellant has not shown any bonafides before the second respondent for considering his case for renewal the licence or grant of fresh dealership. Therefore, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.