S M KHALIL AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation has suspended the supply of petroleum products to them for which they entered into an agreement, vide Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit.

(2.) Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, the matter being purely contractual in nature can only be agitated in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the writ Courts do not usually entertain the writ petitions for enforcement of such contracts. It has further been submitted by Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner who in the present writ is represented by one of the sons of the original dealer has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition as his name does not figure in the agreement.

(3.) I am unable to accept the said two preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. There cannot be any dispute that normally for enforcement of contractual obligation, writ Courts do not entertain writ petitions but in the absence of any dispute and that the respondent-Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and is required to discharge its responsibilities only in accordance with law and not that they should act arbitrarily, the High Court' jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not ousted. Admittedly, the dealership licence has neither been cancelled nor even suspended. Learned counsel for the Corporation has failed to point out any provision in Annexure-1 whereunder the respondent-Corporation can suspend the supply even without suspending the dealership or taking action in terms of the various provisions of the agreement. Under such circumstances, suspending of supply by the respondent-Corporation cannot be held to be legally justified. It is always open to the respondent-Corporation to take action in accordance with law but their action contrary to the law and the terms of the agreement cannot be allowed to continue.