D SANTHAPPAN Vs. IBP COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a typical case where the petitioner, an unemployed graduate, is challenging an arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and perverse act of the respondents in cancelling the dealership granted to the petitioner under Social Objective Scheme on a vague and unsustainable ground, viz. the petitioner has failed to promote the sales of the products marketed by the company to the satisfaction of the company, by the impugned order dated 11.11.1999, quoting Clause 12(a)(i) of the agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation, by exercising the power conferred under Clause 24 of the said agreement.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner was a successful applicant selected for the dealership in petroleum products by the petroleum Corporation, viz. High Speed Diesel under the category of unemployed graduates including unemployed Engineering graduates, supported by a Social Objective Scheme of the Government of India. The qualification and the merit of the petitioner for the above dealership was not disputed by the respondent Corporation.

(3.) Concededly, the public sector oil companies, in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India, have drawn up a scheme for the development of retail outlet Superior Kerosene Oil/Light Diesel Oil (SKO/LDO) and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) distributorship all over the country reserving 70% of these dealership and distributorship under the Social Objective Scheme.