PALI FILLING STATION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner firm through this writ petition has challenged the validity and legality of order dated 29-2-92 (Annex. 6), whereby the District Collector (Supply), Pali suspended its licence under Clause 11 of the Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licensing and Control) Order, 1990 (hereinafter re-ferred to as 'the Order, 1990') for a period of 30 days as well as the order dated 31-3-92 (Annex. 14) passed by the District Supply Officer, Pali (respondent No. 6) cancelling its licence No. 32/91 under Clause 11 of the Order, 1990 and has prayed that the said orders be declared illegal and void and be quashed.

(2.) The petitioner is a proprietary firm and Shanker Dan is its proprietor. Shankerdam was appointed as a dealer for the retail out let of petroleum Products at Ramasia, Pali by the Indian Oil Corporation (respondent No. 4) in the year 1976. However, for the reasons and circumstances best known to the respondent No. 4, neither any formal letter of appointment was issued nor the dealership agreement was executed. On the other hand, a letter dated 27/05/1976 (Annex. 1) was received from the District Manager of res-pondent No. 4 wherein it was intimated that it was proposed to award the retail out let dealership in the names or Sarva Shri Shanker Dan Charan and Sidharth Charan (respondent No. 5). It is the case of the petitioner that since Shri Shaner Dan Charan had made the application for appointment as a dealer in his own name and not with respondent No. 5, he made an objection to respondent No. 4; that thereupon Shanker Dan's objection was accepted and respondent No. 4 rectified its error and issued letter dated 28-9-76 (Annex. 2) to the Collector and District Magistrate, Pali informing that Shri Shanker Dan Charan was appointed as a dealer for the proposed diesel filling station at Sumerpur-Pali road near Kilometer stone 6 at Ramasia and requested that a no objection certificate and approval of the site plan be sent. Thereafter, a no objection certificate was issued in favour of Shanker Dan, who started his business. It is alleged that Shanker Dan purchased the agricultural land, got its conversion for the installation of the diesel pump and the lease-deed of the land was also issued in his favour. Shanker Dan further got installed the electrical and water connections as well as the telephone and petitioner's business was going on smoothly. But to its utter surprise, respondent No. 4 issued a notice dated 26-3-90 (Annex. 3) alleging that the retail out let dealership at Ramasia was awarded jointly in the name of Shri Shanker Dan Charan and Sidharth Charan in terms of their appointment letter dated 11-5-76 (An-nex. R.4/2); that it had come to their knowledge that without their prior written permission, the petitioner had effected several changes in the constitution of the firm im-mediately after the appointment letter and thereafter had contravened clause 6(a) and (b) of the said appointment letter. Respondent No. 4, therefore, asked the petitioner to show cause within 30 days as to why action terminating its dealership should not be taken. The Petitioner submitted its reply dated 26-4-90 (Annex. 4) refuting these allegations and asserted that no letter of appointment as dealer jointly with Sidharth Charan was ever received by it nor any dealership agreement was entered into re-garding the said retail out let. It was further asserted that Shri Sidharth Charan (respon-dent No. 5) was never appointed as a dealer jointly with Shri Shanker Dan Charan. Thereafter, on 28-4-90, the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Pali against respondent No. 4 for the relief of perpetual injunction challenging the notice Annexure-3. The petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rr. 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC and the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 26-4-90 directed the respondent No. 4 to maintain status quo. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri Sidharth Charan, respondent No. 5, who was selected in the IAS in the year 1983, filed an application in the said suit for his im-pleadment as a party which is still pending. Thereafter, on 4-2-92, respondent No. 5 also filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali against the petitioner and two others for the offences under Sections 418, 467, 471 and 477 read with Section 120-B IPC alleging inter alia that in fact the disputed retail out let dealership had been awarded jointly in their favour, but Shanker Dan Charan concealed the said fact from him and further more forged documents to get the said dealership granted in his exclusive name. The Judicial Magistrate transmitted that complaint to the S.H.C., P. S. Sadar, Pali under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. for investigation, who registered crime No. 10/92. It is alleged that Sidharth Charan (respondent No. 5), who is an IAS Officer, maiafidely and abusing his office managed to get an application moved by the Superintendent of Police, Pali to Shri Tapeshwar Panwar, IAS (respondent No. 7), the then Collector, Pali for terminating the licence issued in favour of the petitioner firm under the provisions of Order, 1990 and that in pursuance thereof respondent No. 2 issued order dated 29-2-92 (Annexure. 6) suspending its licence for a period of 30 days. It is the case of the petitioner that neither any notice nor an opportunity to show cause was given to it by the Collector and that its licence was sus-pended malafidely and arbitrarily. The peti-tioner made a representation dated 1-3-91 (Annex. 7) to the Collector and the S. P., Pali wherein he specifically mentioned that the dealership was not issued in favour of Shanker Dan Charan; that all the licences and permissions were issued in the name of M/s. Pali Filling Station of which Shri Shanker Dan was the sole proprietor; that in the year 1980 Sidharth had applied for LPG dealer-ship for Jodhpur, who in his affidavit had specifically deposed that he did not have any link/association with any petroleum com-pany; that in the year 1984 Sidharth, with a mala fide intention, had made a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent No. 4, and that a civil suit for perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner was pending in the Court of Civil Judge wherein a stay order was issued. It was also mentioned therein that thereafter Sidharth had lodged an FIR against Shanker Dan, who was granted anticipatory bail. It was mentioned in the said representation that Sidharth had demanded Rs. 1.50 lacs from the petitioner for making an application for withdrawal of his name from the letter of intent and thus he was trying to black-mail the petitioner firm. It is the case of the petitioner that on 3-3-92 Shri M. R. Sharma, District Supply Officer, Pali (re-spondent No. 8) issued a show cause notice (Annex. 10) to it. In the said notice, it was stated that the S.H.O., Pali on investigation was found certain irregularities. It was pointed out that in the year 1976, Sidarth got issued a joint dealership in the name of Sarva Shri Shanker Dan and Sidharth for the Pali Filling Station, that Shanker Dan by com-mitting forgery removed the name of Sid-harth and procured the appointment letter in his own name from respondent No. 4 and has thus, cheated respondent No. 5. It was further alleged in notice Annex. 10 that Shanker Dan gad obtained a licence No. 32/91 on the basis of a forged document. The petitioner firm submitted its reply dated 20-3-91 (Annex. 11) categorically refuting the said allegations along with the copies of the ap-plication dated 6-5-76 (Annex. 12) and the Bank Draft of Rs. 25,000.00 deposited by Shanker Dan as security amount for the Pali Filling Station. The District Supply Officer (respondent Nos. 6-8) held that from the notice dated 26-3-90 (Annex. 3) issued by I.O.C. it was proved that Shanker Dan and Sidharth had jointly filed the application for dealership of the Pali Filling Station, that the application dated 31-1-91 for grant of licence filed by the petitioner under clause 4(i)(a) of Order 1990 was incomplete; that many facts therein were concealed; and that the peti-tioner had procured the licence by submitting forged documents. He observed that it was also a matter for consideration that when the letter for proposal for the grant of dealership was issued by the I.O.C. in the joint name of Shankerdan and Sidharth Charan then how the dealership was issued exclusively in the name of Shankerdan and that on this aspect, the petitioner has not given any explanation. He further observed that the N.O.C. issued by the District Magistrate, Pali in favour of Shankerdan pertained to the conversion of the agricultural land, which had no direct relation with the dealership in dispute. He held that since the petitioner firm did not submit the agreement executed, between it and the IOC, it raised a suspicion about its proprietorship. He further observed that petitioner's contention to the effect that it has not violated any condition of the licence, was immaterial and irrelevant because under clause 4(i)(a) of Order, 1990 the application has to be verified with the declaration of the applicant that all the facts mentioned therein are correct and that nothing has been con-cealed but on the other hand, the petitioner has procured licence by filing forged docu-ments. Respondent No. 6, therefore, by his impugned order dated 31-3-92 (Annex. 14) cancelled licence No. 32 issued in favour of M/s. Pali Filling Station under Clause 11 of the Order, 1990.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that the petitioner had initially filed this writ petition challenging the validity of suspension order dated 29-2-92 (Annx. 6) but since thereafter the said licence was also cancelled by re-spondent No. 6 by his order dated 31-3-92 (Annex. 14) the same was also challenged and the writ petition was accordingly amended. Respondents Nos. 7 and 8, who were the then Collector, Pali and District Supply Officer, Pali respectively have also been impleaded in their personal capacity.