PILANIA INDANE GAS SERVICE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed on 2nd December, 2010 challenging the order dated 2nd December, 2009 passed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. terminating the distributorship agreement existing between the petitioner and the Corporation. Therefore, first question arose in the mind of the Court as to what is the ground of laches in filing the writ petition challenging the order dated 2nd December, 2009. Criptic explanation has been given with regard to pendency of proceeding before the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, Ghaziabad in connection with wrong information alleging the income of the petitioner, being one of the conditions for termination of distributorship agreement, and passing of the order by the Income Tax Authority dated 19th January, 2010 pursuant thereto. However, we do not find such explanation as satisfactory. Even if we hold and say that such explanation is sufficient, but such sufficiency cannot overcome the laches beyond 19th January, 2010 without any explanation therefor. Hence, in view of the judgments in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1975 4 SCC 285 and Sawaran Lata and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2010 4 SCC 532 writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner has been fortified with various judgments. The judgments are relied upon mostly on two grounds, i.e. whether alternative remedy of arbitration can be a ground for refusal of a writ petition and/or there is no bar for judicial review in connection with the contractual obligation. So far as the point that alternative remedy is no bar for invocation of writ jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in Union of India and others v. Tantia Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2011 4 Scale 745; Harbans Lal Sahania and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, 2003 2 SCC 107; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others v. Super Highway Services and another, 2010 3 SCC 321; M/s Navin Filling Station, Nawabganj, Bareilly v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, 2008 6 ADJ 319 and Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 8 SCC 338. Similarly, he has also relied upon the judgments in Mahabir Auto Stores and others v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, 1990 3 SCC 752; Nobel Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others, 2006 10 SCC 236 and Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks Mumbai and others, 1998 8 SCC 1 to show that scope of judicial review in connection with contractual obligation is no bar.

(3.) We have no querrel with the proposition of law. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has unfettered rights. But as the power is high, the control should be higher. Therefore, writ Court normally restricts its intervention only when the question of unfail play, arbitrary or mala fide action on the part of the authority is there. In the instant case the distributorship has been cancelled due to non-availability of the supporting documents to establish the income. Therefore, due to suppression of material facts or not having requisite documents on 1st August, 2005, the distributorship agreement was terminated on 2nd December, 2009. The petitioner wanted to clarify the position and after obtaining the appropriate documents from the Income Tax Authority produced the same on 19th January, 2010. Therefore, if any authority does not act on the basis of such submission of documents, it was open for the petitioner to go before higher authority or appellate authority or to invoke the jurisdiction of arbitration for the purpose of appropriate adjudication. It is not a case of unfair play or arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power, without jurisdiction, infringement of fundamental right, violation of principles of natural justice nor the vires of the Act has been challenged to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court inspite of having alternative remedy.