DHARAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2012 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing CWP No.10477 of 2008 preferred by the appellant wherein he sought a direction against the Indian Oil Corporation IOC. to award dealership to him or his nominee as per the promise/policy dated 23.07.2003. The appellant challenged the validity of subsequent policy dated 06.09.2006 Annexure P7. also besides a direction for its prospective applicability without affecting the appellant s right. Challenge to the award of dealership in favour of respondent No.3 was also there.

(2.) The claim of the appellant emerges out of a letter dated 18.07.2003 Annexure P1. addressed to him by IOC to the effect that it wanted to put up Company-Owned-Company-Operated COCO. outlet at village Garhi Birbal, District Karnal and for that purpose it will enter into a lease agreement with the appellant on mutually-acceptable terms. It was mentioned in the letter that if the Corporation decides to operate the outlet through a dealer instead of COCO, first offer shall be made to the landlord provided that all the terms and conditions and Corporation policy prevailing at that time, are fulfilled. The Corporation thereafter issued a Circular dated 23.07.2003 [the alleged promise/policy] Annexure P2. wherein it was stated that landowner s nominee both from within and outside the family will also be permitted to be appointed as COCO operator etc.

(3.) The appellant acted in furtherance to the above-stated letter/circular and leased out his land to IOC for a period of 30 years vide lease deed dated 22.09.2003 Annexure P3.. The retail outlet was commissioned in September, 2003 but instead of appointing the appellant as a dealer, he was asked to run the outlet as a labour contractor for which he nominated his son Sunil Kumar.. During this arrangement, the Union of India issued a policy/circular dated 06.09.2006 Annexure P7. whereby permanent COCO retail outlets were directed to be operated by the Oil Companies through their own Officers without job contractors. The IOC on the basis of Policy/circular dated 06.09.2006 asked the appellant to hand over possession of the retail outlet and on his refusal, terminated his contract vide letter dated 03.05.2007 and appointed one M/s. Chauhan Traders as ad hoc dealer. The said ad hoc dealership was also later on terminated followed by regular dealership of the retail outlet allotted to respondent No.3 under the Scheduled Caste quota. The aggrieved appellant approached this Court.