SATISH AHUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment of a Single Judge dismissing his writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. An order dated 12.08.2016 dismissing the subsequent review petition, too has been impugned.

(2.) The appellant entered into a dealership agreement dated 06.03.1992 with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), whereby the Appellant was appointed dealer for the sale and supply of certain petroleum products. IOCL is represented through its officers, the second to fourth respondents. The retail outlet allotted to the petitioner, located in Ghaziabad was owned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) and had been leased to IOCL. The lease expired in 2008.Subsequent efforts by IOCL to renew the lease were unsuccessful. The Petitioner was therefore served with an eviction notice relating to the dealership on 24.09.2012. He alleges to have continued to maintain the outlet and provide security for it after it was closed down by orders of the GDA in November 2012. He resigned from the dealership agreement with IOCL vide letter dated 25.09.2013, stating therein that he felt compelled to resign as he was unable to bear maintenance and security costs of a closed outlet. In accordance with the resignation letter, the IOCL terminated the dealership agreement by termination letter dated17.12.2013.

(3.) The Appellant thereafter, through representations made to IOCL sought revival of his erstwhile dealership or re-sitement, in accordance with the guidelines on "Reconstitution, re-sitement and Revival of retail outlets" issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, through letter dated 17.11.2005. As his representations were of no avail, he approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. IOCL contended that this court ought not to exercise jurisdiction and instead, dismiss the writ petition, allowing the appellant to approach the concerned High Court since the cause of action and the outlet fell outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The single judge, by the impugned order therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Contentions of the Parties