Hindustan Oil Company vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others

1.The petitioner has made following prayer before this Court:

That the writ petition be accepted and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to issue letter of intent for dealership of retail outlet for motor sprit/high speed diesel oil for any suitable site within the city of Jaipur.

Such other order as your lordship deem proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

The brief facts of the case are that in 1966, the former Burma-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of India had appointed the petitioner, M/s Hindustan Oil Company as a dealer for Motor Sprit and High Speed Diesel Oil for outlet at Jaipur. The petitioner''s petrol pump was situated outside Saganeri Gate on Moti Dungari Road, Jaipur. Vide letter dated 27.10.1969, the Burma-Shell Company informed the petitioner that since it had violated some terms of the dealership, it will take over the petrol pump on 01.11.2008. Apprehending the proposed action of Burma-Shell Company, on 31.10.1969, the petitioner filed a suit for injunction against Burma-Shell Company in the Court of Munisf Jaipur West. In the written statement filed by the Burma-Shell Company, it claimed that it had terminated the petitioner''s dealership on 27.10.1969. It further claimed that the District Magistrate had not extended or renewed the license granted to the petitioner beyond 20.09.1969 for the retail outlet at Sanganeri Gate. However, when the case came up for framing of the issues, Burma-Shell Company entered into a compromise with the petitioner.

Since the population of Jaipur City was increasing, the UIT, Jaipur decided to shift the petitioner''s petrol pump from Sanganeri Gate to another location. Consequently, on 03.10.1970, the Secretary of UIT informed the petitioner that in accordance with the order of the Collector dated 29.09.1970 a plot of 1000 yards is being allotted on the Agra Road for establishing its petrol pump.

It further informed that the possession of the land will be handed over only after the petitioner vacates the present petrol pump at Sanganeri Gate. Subsequently, the possession of the plot on the Agra Road was handed over to the petitioner on 06.01.1971. According to the petitioner, thereafter, it invested a huge amount in leveling the land and in placing wire fencing around the plot. Vide letter dated 13.09.1971, the UIT directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of "Najarana". The petitioner complied with the same. Vide letter dated 29.03.1971, the UIT informed the Collector, Jaipur that it has no objection if the Collector were to issue a NOC to the petitioner for shifting its petrol pump from Sanganeri Gate to Agra Road. Similarly, vide letter dated 09.11.1971, the Superintendent of Police, District Jaipur also informed the Collector that the Police Department does not have any objection if the petitioner were to shift its petrol pump to the Agra Road. Likewise, the Fire Brigade Department of the Municipal Council also gave its approval for the said shifting. However, vide letter dated 17.10.1975, the UIT informed the petitioner that inspite of allotting a plot at Agra Road, it would allot another site on the National Highway Byepass. The petitioner was also directed to meet the Chairman of the UIT on 29.10.1975. Vide letter dated 17.05.1976, the Assistant Secretary of UIT informed the petitioner that a new site would be allotted and the possession would be delivered as soon as the land is levelled. According to the petitioner, the dispute with regard to the allotment of site was pending in the UIT and is under consideration by the Jaipur Development Authority (''the JDA'', for short), since the JDA has replaced the UIT.

Furthermore, according to the petitioner, he has been pursuing about allotment of the land with the JDA. Similarly, he has been trying to convince the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, respondent No. 1 who replaced Burma-Shell Company about the grant of dealership of a petrol pump to it. Vide letter dated 05.09.1997, the petitioner informed the Chief Regional Manager that it has three sites in its mind for the construction of the retail outlet. In case, the respondent No. 1 were to choose any of the sites, the petitioner would purchase the same. Along with this letter, the petitioner sent a copy of the compromise dated 13.10.1970. However, the letter did not solicit any response from the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the petitioner sent a reminder on 09.10.1997 to respondent No. 1. Repeatedly, the petitioner has been meeting various officers of respondent No. 1, but despite the verbal assurance, the respondent No. 1 has yet to issue a letter of intent for granting a dealership to the petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court.

A bare perusal of the facts narrated above clearly reveals that there are various gaps in the story of the petitioner. For, the petitioner claims that his right to a leadership arises out of a compromise that was allegedly entered into between the parties on 13.10.1970. However, from 13.10.1970, the petitioner did not make any efforts till 05.09.1997 i.e. after an inordinate delay of twenty-seven years. The story picks up its thread from the year 1997. The petitioner has failed to explain the inordinate delay of 29 years in presenting this writ petition, except to vaguely assert that it has been pursuing the matter with the respondent No. 1. There is no evidence to prove this assertion. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to a dealership only because he was appointed as a dealer on previous occasion. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any case law on the point that "once a dealer is always a dealer". Therefore, the petitioner is unable to make out even a civil right to the dealership, what to speak about a fundamental right to a dealership.

In these circumstance, the writ petition not only suffers from inordinate delay and latches, but also suffers from non-violation of civil or fundamental rights. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of any merit.

It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.