Mahveer Suwalka vs Indian Oil Corporation and Others

This special appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 25th September 2013 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1967/2013. The learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned refused to interfere with the matter on the count that the same involves disputed questions of facts which require to be adjudicated by a civil court.

While questioning correctness of the judgment aforesaid, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that there is a flagrant violation of the norms settled by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for grant of retail petroleum outlet. It is asserted that as a matter of fact, instant one is a case of deep favoritism.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent Indian Oil Corporation invited applications for grant of retail outlet dealership for petroleum products and in pursuance thereto, applications were submitted by the petitioner-appellant as well as by respondent No. 4 Gaurav Galariya. The respondents awarded certain marks against location to the respondent No. 4 and being aggrieved by the same, petition for writ was filed with assertion that the location proposed by respondent No. 4 is not suitable for establishing a petroleum product outlet being not in consonance with the norms settled by the Indian Oil Corporation. Learned Single Judge after considering the facts arrived at the conclusion that the petition involves disputed questions of facts and those deserves to be adjudicated by a Civil Court.

In the appeal, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that whatever facts available on record can be settled by perusal of the record and as such learned Single Judge erred while refusing to entertain the writ petition.

Beside the above, it is submitted by learned counsel that instant one is a case of favoritism and, therefore, interference is required to be made by this Court by invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction.

While placing reliance upon the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s judgment in Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. NOIDA and Others, it is submitted that the State or the Public authority which holds the property for public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largesse, etc., acts as a trustee and therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. A public authority is ultimately accountable to the public in whom the sovereignty vests. All powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest but in the present case by extending favour to the respondent No. 4, the respondents have not acted as trustee of the public authority. Reliance is also placed by learned counsel upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others,

Having considered the arguments advanced, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any error that may warrant interference of this Court in appellate jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge after examining the documents placed on record arrived at the conclusion that the entire matter involves certain facts and those are required to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is questioning the suitability of location on the counts of its distance from the main road and also on the count of passing through of a High Tension Electricity line. These facts require settlement by adducing necessary evidence, may that be in the form of documents. So far as the judgments cited by the learned counsel is concerned, those are having no application in the present controversy because the issue of favoritism can very well be examined by the Civil Court too. In normal course the writ court is not required to adjudicate the questions of facts which can be settled by adducing evidence only. As such, the appeal is having no merit. Dismissed accordingly.