SANTOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 1015/2014 are narrated hereunder. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, inviting applications for LPG Distributorship for location Manasa Village Mahagarh, Village Pipliyaraoji and Village Sawan.

(2.) Contention of the petitioner is that he is the proprietor of M/s. Vallabh Indane and the Distributorship was awarded to him by respondent No. 3-Indian Oil Corporation for the city of Manasa and the area falling within 15 kms radius from Manasa. It has been further stated that by virtue of an advertisement a second dealer is being appointed and, therefore, the advertisement is bad in law.

(3.) A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondent-Corporation is that Clause 2 of the Agreement executed between the Oil Company and the petitioner empowers the Oil Company to appoint one or more additional distributors in the territory referred in Clause 1(a) meaning thereby, the agreement permits the Corporation to appoint more than one dealer in the area in which the petitioner's agency is operational. Similarly, attention of this Court has been drawn towards Clause 1(b)(iv) of the same agreement. The same permits the Oil Company to extend the area or to reduce the area of operation in respect of existing dealer and, therefore, contention of the Oil Company is that they have rightly issued an advertisement for appointment of a Distributor.