SEHDEV Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited notified its proposal to appoint a dealer for a Retail Outlet at Ahingran (Sidhwan Bet/Dharamkot Road) in District Ludhiana. Various persons submitted their applications. One of the applicants Mr. Sehdev was selected. Aggrieved by this selection, one of the candidates Mr. Santokh Singh filed a complaint before the Oil Selection Board. The Board having not accepted his claim, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7159 of 1988. The authorities undertook to re-examine the matter. The writ petition was dismissed as premature. Subsequently, the complaint was rejected. To challenge this action, Santokh Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No. 14287 of 1990. He alleged that Sehdev was not eligible for the allotment of a Retail Outlet as-(i) He was already a partner in M/s. Amar Filling Station, Bhundari, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana;(ii) His father Shri Amar Nath was a partner in M/s. Anurag Filling Station, Mullanpur, District Ludhiana; and(iii) Sehdev had an annual income exceeding Rs. 50,000/-.

(2.) The learned single Judge vide judgment dated February 5, 1992 allowed the writ petition with the finding that Sehdev was not eligible as he and his father were already dealing in petroleum products. Aggrieved by this judgment, Sehdev as well as the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited have filed these two Letters Patent Appeals.

(3.) Mr. Hira Lal Sibal, learned Counsel for Sehdev has contended that the view taken by the learned single Judge is not correct. Sehdev had not been appointed as a dealer by any company. He was merely a partner with Amar Singh. Similarly, even Amar Nath, father of Sehdev was also a partner and not a dealer. Consequently, the learned single Judge has erred in holding that the appellant-Sehdev was ineligible for the allotment of a Retail Outlet. Secondly, Mr. Sibal contended that neither the dealer viz. Shri Amar Singh with whom the appellant was alleged to be a partner nor the Indo Burma Petroleum Corporation having been impleaded as parties, the High Court could not have decided the disputed questions of fact involved in the case in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Resultantly, the dealership allotted to the appellant had been wrongly annulled.