DILIP DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.C. Borbora, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the IOC) and their officers are represented by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. M.K. Choudhury. The Liquidator appointed for the Assam Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the STATFED) is represented by advocate Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah and Ms. J. Bora. The Standing Counsel, Cooperation Deptt. Dr. B. Ahmed, appears for the State respondents. The termination of L.P.G. Distributorship, inter alia, at North Lakhimpur and Nalbari through the impugned order dated 28.9.2010 by the IOC is under challenge in these two cases. Since common issues are raised and the arguments are on the same line, both cases are considered together. The facts in this judgment are taken from the W.P.(C) 5831/2010.

(2.) The STATFED before it went into liquidation, decided to enter the business of distributorship of L.P.G. Cylinders in various locations in Assam and accordingly a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 27.10.2005 was reached between the STATFED and their Class B shareholder for appointing the writ petitioner as a managing agent for L.P.G. distributorship business at North Lakhimpur. Similar MOU was also executed on 18.10.2005 with the writ petitioner in the W.P.(C) 5829/2005 for the same business at Nalbari. Thereafter individual distributorship agreements were executed in 19 towns between the IOC and the local entity described as the STATFED location Indent Agency for running the business of distribution of L.P.G. Cylinders in 19 towns and the writ petitioners who are Class-B shareholders of the STATFED were appointed as managing agents to operate the distributorship.

(3.) However when the STATFED went into liquidation on 14.62006 and the Cylinder supply was discontinued, the aggrieved L.P.G. agents approached the High Court to challenge the IOC's action. But considering the agents to be strangers to the distributorship agreement, the learned Single Judge through the common judgment dated 26.3.2009, dismissed the writ petitions. But in the resultant Writ Appeal No. 140/2009 filed by the agent Dilip Dutta, the Division Bench on 9.2.2010 (Annexure-12) declared that because of the STATFED going into liquidation will not automatically terminate the on-going distributorship business and accordingly the IOC's order dated 28.7.2006 (Annexure-8) stopping delivery of L.P.G. Cylinders to the agents was quashed by the Division Bench on 9.2.2010 (Annexure-12). However if IOC contemplated any further action against the L.P.G. agents, the Division Bench gave liberty but with due and adequate notice. The Court categorically observed that this protective order will apply to the three agents who had approached the Division Bench.