(1.) The petitioner was operating a retail outlet for petroleum products in Ghaziabad, which was shut down as the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) did not renew the lease on terms as acceptable to respondent no. 2 (IOCL). The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent no. 2 (IOCL) to grant revival of the dealership or resitement of a retail outlet. Further, the petitioner prays that IOCL be directed to compensate the petitioner for the alleged losses suffered by him for maintaining the retail outlet while it was closed.
(2.) The petitioner contends that the action of the IOCL to terminate the dealership agreement with the petitioner is contrary to the DeLeasing policy issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas issued on 28.04.2010 (hereafter 'the Policy'). The petitioner submits that as per Clause 1.3 of the Policy, the IOCL is obliged to explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement for renewal of a lease agreement This is disputed by the IOCL, which contends that in line with the Policy, it made earnest efforts to obtain the land upon which the dealership was located. Further, it even made a representation to the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA), the lessor of the said land, to purchase the said land. However, the reserve price of the said land was commercially unviable for the IOCL.
(3.) It is the petitioner's case that under the guidelines for Reconstitution, Resitement and Revival of Retail Outlets issued on 17.11.2005 (hereafter 'the Guidelines'), the petitioner is entitiled for resitement, as his dealership was closed for reasons not attributable to him. IOCL disputes the aforesaid claim and contends that the petitioner had tendered his resignation voluntarily and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to resitement of the dealership. It further claims that in terms of the guidelines, resitement can be done only if the dealer arranges the land for the same. Factual Background