DINESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE letter dated 27.6.2013, GM(Retail), Meerut, Office of the respondent- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) informed the District Supply Officer, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh that they had awarded ad hoc dealership to Mr. Ashok Kumar (petitioner no.2 before this Court) in the name and style of M/s Ashok Filling Station at Village Ghunna, Teshil Maheshwari, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh and requested him to issue diesel selling license in favour of the said frim. Vide subsequent communication dated 14.12.2004, the Meerut office of BPCL informed the GM (Retail), North of the said company that the aforesaid firm was not got the sale volume as projected in the feasibility report, because of the reasons specified in the communication and the land owner had been regularly seeking conversion of the aforesaid retail outlet to a regular outlet under the 'Landlord Linked Category' so that the actual potential of the site could be adduced by giving credit in the market. The said office recommended the dealership under the 'Landlord Linked Category'. The case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid outlet is being run through petitioner no.2 Mr. Ashok Kumar who is the nominee of petitioner no.1.

(2.) APPREHENDING cancellation of the said outlet, the petitioners filed W.P(C) No.2006/2007. The said petition, however, was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.8.2012. The petitioners filed an application for restoration of the said petition which, however, was dismissed with liberty to file a petition qua any fresh cause of action. The petitioners then filed W.P(C) No.5701/2012 impugning the advertisement dated 15.9.2011, by BPCL seeking to allot the site on which the petitioners are operating from the outlet. The said petition was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Court in case of fresh cause of action. Now another writ petition has been filed on the averment that BPCL had issued a letter to one Ms. Meenakshi to appear for interview on 3.9.2013 and it is holding interview for allotment of the site which the petitioners are running their outlet.

(3.) AS noted earlier, the headquarters of the respondent - BPCL is situated in Mumbai though the said company does have office almost throughout the country including Delhi. The site where the petitioners are running their outlet is situated in Saharanpur District of Uttar Pradesh. The communication dated 27.8.2003 and 14.12.2004 both were issued from Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) office of BPCL. Therefore, neither any cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court nor is the headquarter or office dealing with the petitioners situated in Delhi. Even the communication dated 7.8.2013 issued to Ms. Meenakashi requiring her to appear before the Dealer Selection Committee for interview for the purpose of awarding retail outlet of BPCL at Village Ghunna, Teshil Maheshwari, District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh has been issued from Noida (Uttar Pradesh) Regional Office of BPCL. In these circumstances, it would be extremely difficult to accept the contention that Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction in the matter merely because one of the offices of BPCL happens to be situated in Delhi. If the said contention is accepted, it would be possible to file such writ petition anywhere in the country since BPCL would have its office almost throughout the country.