SURESH TIWARI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER I O C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the facts averred in the writ petition the Indian Oil Corporation (for short IOC) granted dealership for Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) at Achrol to the petitioner. On September 11, 2001 when the inspection of the outlet was conducted it was found in perfect order put Shri Sanjay Bhandari ASsistant Manager (Sales) IOC on October 14, 2001 suddenly appeared at the outlet and demanded money from the attendant and on his refusal communicated false report. Thereafter another inspection was conducted on October 15, 2001 and the punishment of closure of Retail outlet was imposed on the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this action the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court seeking quashing of the order/communication of the IOC dated October 15, 2001 and November 2, 2001 and prayed to allow him to operate the Retail Outlet.

(2.) THE grounds for challenging the action of the respondents are that the respondent IOC has ignored the Marketing Discipline Guide Lines in respect of proposed punishment in case of irregularities committed by the dealers. According to the petitioner his case does not fall in any way so as to be given such penal punishment of closure of the Retail Outlet and that too for almost four months. THEre is no such provision and penalty proposed in the Marketing Guide Lines but the respondent IOC on it's own has initiated such a process malafidely. It is further averred that the act of the IOC is against the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before the aforequoted penal order was passed. It is after the closure of the Retail Outlet that a notice seeking clarification was given to the petitioner. THE petitioner in addition to the quashing of the aforesaid communication also prayed that an enquiry against Sanjay Bhandari should be conducted and the respondents be directed to compensate the petitioner for the loss which has been incurred by him by way of closure of the Retail Outlet.

(3.) IN State of U. P. and others vs. Bridge & Roof Company (INdia) Ltd. (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that dispute relating to terms of private contract, proper course would be to reference to arbitration or institution of suit and not writ petition.