JAGDAMBAY AUTO STATION Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a declaration that the termination letter dated 22.02.2010, terminating the petitioners' dealership as a dealer of respondent No. 2 � Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) in respect of petrol, high-speed diesel, motor oil, grease, etc. is arbitrary; is issued in colourable exercise of power, and; is disproportionate to the alleged irregularity attributed to the petitioners. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to restore the petitioners' dealership and to resume sale & supply of petroleum products to the retail outlet of petitioner No.1. In the alternative, the petitioners have sought a declaration that interference by respondents No. 2 to 5, i.e., IOCL & its officers in the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of land admeasuring 2 Kanals (40 Marlas), on which the retail outlet of petitioner No.1 is situated, falling in Khasra No. 696/2, 697/2/2, Khatoni No. 380/4087 situated at G.T. Road Bypass, Village Chogitdi, Jalandhar City, Jalandhar, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the said land) is an abuse of authority conferred upon the respondents, and is unreasonable and unfair. The petitioners have also sought a restraint against the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the said land by the petitioners. The petitioners have sought a declaration requiring the respondent No. 2 to remove its underground tanks, dispensing units, equipments, fixtures, fittings, etc. from the aforesaid land.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that a dealership agreement (hereinafter referred to as the agreement) was executed between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 on 05.11.1976 for retail sale and supply of petrol, HSD, motor oil, grease, etc. The petitioners state that this agreement was executed at Delhi. Clause 68 of the agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts in Delhi to entertain any suit, application or any other proceeding in respect of any claim or dispute arising under the agreement. According to the petitioners, even prior to the execution of the said agreement, petitioner No.2 and one Shri Surinder Prakash purchased the aforesaid parcel of land, on which eventually the petrol pump was located under the agreement in the name and style of "Jagdambay Auto Station". The petitioners state that a lease deed was executed on 25.02.2002 in respect of the said land in favour of the respondent No. 2, granting the same to respondent No. 2 for a term of thirty years extendable for another ten years with mutual consent w.e.f. 01.03.2002. The petitioners claim that the lease deed was executed on account of the dominant position of respondent No. 2 and the undue influence and coercion exercised by respondent No. 2.

(3.) THE petitioners preferred another Civil Suit for permanent injunction against the officers of the respondent � IOCL; this time before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar. The petitioners state that the said suit had been filed apprehending dispossession of the petitioners from the said land. The respondents preferred an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in this suit on the basis of an arbitration agreement between the parties. During the pendency of the suit filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, which appears to have been filed some time in April 2010, the appeal preferred by the petitioners under MDG 2005 came to be dismissed vide an order dated 09.08.2010. It is in this background that the petitioners preferred the present writ petition during the pendency of the aforesaid two suits � one pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts and the other pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar.