RAM SINGH Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Singh for himself as also as partner of M/s. Shakti Filling Station, Adda Rawal Pindi, Phagwara. District Kapurthala, in the present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges letter, Annexure P-14 suspending/ stopping the supply of petrol and diesel to the partnership concern-M/s. Shakti Filling Station, Petitioner No. 2 and directing the Indian Oil Corporation to desist from stopping, denying or discontinuing the supply of petrol, diesel and all kinds of lubricants.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition reveal that respondent No. 3-ParmaNand was appointed as dealer for the sale of petrol and diesel at Rawal Pindi, Tehsil Phagwara vide letter, Annexure P-1 dated October 18, 1982. The said dealership was to be given to a person belonging to reserved category of Scheduled Caste. Respondent No. 3 Parma Nand did belong to the category referred to above and, as mentioned above, he was-appointed dealer an October 18, 1982. It is then the case of the petitioner that on May 10, 1982 an agreement of partnership/arrangement was signed between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Earlier thereto on November 15, 1979 Ram Singh petitioner had purchased the land and on April 10, 1985 a partnership deed came into being between petitioner and respondent No. 3. On April 7, 1986, however, Parma Nand sent a request for reconsti-tution and such a request was also made by the petitioner on the same day. However, on January 28, 1991 respondent Corporation required Parma Nand, respondent No. 3 to prove that the partnership was bona fide. It is further the case of petitioner that on April 1, 1992 fresh partnership deed came to be executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 3, However, vide impugned order, Annexure P-14, dated March 11, 1998 supply of MS, HSD was stopped.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondents 1 to 3 have entered defence and vide two separate written statements, one filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and the other by respondent No. 3, have contested the case of the petitioner. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it has been pleaded that respondent No. 3 was appointed a dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation and there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and Indian Oil Corporation and that the writ petition requires determination of disputed facts which cannot be gone into by this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further the case of respondents that the matter is pending determination in a civil suit filed by respondent No. 3. It has further been pleaded that the respondent dealer was not permitted to enter into any partnership without the prior permission of respondents 1 and 2. The partnership deed was forwarded to respondents 1 and 2 but the proposal was rejected by them way back in 1991. It appears that representation was . again received seeking permission for Divisional Manager, Chandigarh, keeping in view the commercial interest of the Corporation. However, this proposal was also not approved by respondents 1 and 2. The supply of petrol and diesel has been stopped as requested by the dealer himself.