ROSHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE counsel who appears for the petitioners in all the petitions states that the controversy in all the writ petitions is identical and has argued with respect to W.P.(C) No. 2759/2007. THE petitions impugn the Notification dated 6th September, 2006 of the respondent no.1 Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG), Govt. of India; the petitioners aver that the said Notification though not applicable to the petitioners Retail Outlets/Petrol Pumps, is being wrongly applied to the petitioners. THE petitions also seek to restrain the respondent no.2 IBP Company Ltd. (IBP) from terminating/cancelling the petitioners Retail Outlets/Petrol Pumps on the basis of the said Notification dated 6th September, 2006. Alternatively, the petitions seek surrender of the land underneath the said Retail Outlets/Petrol Pumps leased out to the respondent no.2 IBP and delivery of possession thereof.

(2.) NOTICE of the petitions was issued and parties directed to maintain status quo qua allotment, possession and construction of the Petrol Pumps in question. The said interim relief has continued till now. It was the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.2 IBP as far back as on 15th May, 2008 that the controversy in the petitions is covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. The same was controverted by the counsel for the petitioners, though at one stage the matters were adjourned for the reason of pendency of identical matters in the Supreme Court. The petitions were thereafter allowed to be amended to inter alia add the relief of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 IBP to appoint the petitioner no.1 as the permanent dealer in respect of the Retail Outlets subject matter of the petitions. The petitioners thereafter filed applications contending that though lease of a much larger piece of land had been given and taken by the respondent no.2 IBP but the Retail Outlets/Petrol Pumps were operating in a portion only thereof and seeking the release of the remaining land from the lease to the petitioners. NOTICE of the said applications was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.2 IBP to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners. The counsels have been heard.

(3.) IT is further the case of the petitioners that though till 31st March, 2002 the distribution of petroleum products was under the control of Public Section Oil Companies only but thereafter the Private Sector Companies such as Reliance, ESSAR were allowed to set up Retail Outlets and the Administered Price Mechanism till then in force was dismantled and more freedom given to the Public Sector Oil Companies also to frame their own policies and in accordance wherewith the respondent no.2 IBP was expected to appoint the petitioner no.1 as the dealer with respect to the Retail Outlet/Petrol Pump on the land of the petitioner no.1. Reference is made to the Policy Guidelines dated 8th October, 2002 for selection of Retail Outlet Dealers in the de-regulated scenario.