@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S.N. Hussain, J.@mdashThis writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of appropriate writs/orders or directions for quashing letter dated 13.01.2011 issued by respondent no. 8 whereby and
whereunder distribution of L.P.G. in the name of the petitioner''s agency has been suspended.
(ii) Further after quashing of the above said letter dated 13.01.2011 the respondents may be directed to resume the distributorship of L.P.G. in the
name of the petitioner''s agency.
(iii) And further during the pendency of this writ application the above said letter dated 13.01.2011 may be stayed and the respondent corporation
may be directed to return the articles and equipments (including L.P.G. Cylinders and Pressure Regulators) etc to the agency of the petitioner and
also for resumption of supply to the petitioner''s agency which has been stopped w.e.f. 13.01.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on 18.02.2002 an advertisement for distributorship of L.P.G. Gas was published by the Indane Oil
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ''the Corporation'' for the sake of brevity) for Benipur Block within the district of Darbhanga under
reserved category of scheduled caste in response to which the petitioner, being scheduled caste, submitted his application form within the time
allowed, whereafter interview of the petitioner was held along with other candidates, whereafter merit list was prepared in which the petitioner was
at serial no. 1 and accordingly Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 08.11.2003 was issued in favour of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the aforesaid Letter of Intent dated 08.11.2003 arrangement of suitable plot of
land with cylinder storage facility (godown), sales room in the trading area of distributorship, delivery vehicles in sufficient numbers, facility of
telephones and working capital etc. were to be made by the Corporation, but even after two years of issuance of LOI the said facilities were not
arranged by the Corporation and hence the petitioner was forced to enter into partnership with Khalid Saifullah Rahmani and Navin Kumar Jha
vide partnership deed dated 11.06.2005 according to which Khalid Saifullah Rahmani was proposed to be a financing partner, whereas Navin
Kumar Jha was proposed to be working partner but the said deed was never acted upon in reality and finally the power of attorney given in favour
of Navin Kumar Jha by the petitioner was revoked by the said Navin Kumar Jha. Thereafter the petitioner vide letter dated 23.03.2006 informed
the Corporation that he was not opting for the financial assistance offered by the Corporation vide LOI dated 08.11.2003 and requested the
Corporation along with his proposal to accord permission for construction of show-room and godown at his own cost and in response to it the
Corporation issued a fresh Letter of Intent dated 30.03.2006 in favour of the petitioner for the same distributorship in which certain conditions
were enumerated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner sent notice dated 24.07.2006 to Khalid Saifullah
Rahmani and Navin Kumar Jha dissolving the partnership vide agreement deed dated 11.06.2005 and also revoking the power of attorney,
thereafter the petitioner completed all the formalities himself by arranging capital, constructing godown after taking lease of land for ten years and
also taking another premises on lease basis for ten years for show-room purpose. Only thereafter final dealership appointment letter dated
14.12.2006 was issued by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner, who started all the works of L.P.G. distributorship with effect from
22.12.2006 and an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Corporation on 06.05.2008 for the purpose of distributorship of
L.P.G. for Benipur Dev Block within the district of Darbhanga.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the petitioner''s partnership deed dated 11.06.2005 with Khalid Saifullah Rahmani and another
was finally dissolved through notary on 08.08.2008 and through registry office on 02.02.2010 with consent. In the said deed of dissolution it was
specifically mentioned that the said partners had no interest as the said earlier partnership agreement dated 11.06.2005 was never acted upon,
thereafter power of attorney dated 11.06.2005 in favour of Navin Kumar Jha was also revoked and cancelled by the petitioner through registry
office on 31.12.2009.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that till 12.01.2011 the distribution agency of the petitioner was working properly as per the norms
of the Corporation but all of a sudden on 13.01.2011 the impugned order was passed by the Corporation suspending the petitioner''s
distributorship of L.P.G. stopping supply of gas and taking away articles from the petitioner''s agency. The said order was passed due to some
complaint made against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had entered into an unauthorized registered partnership agreement with Khalid
Saifullah Rahmani and Navin Kumar Jha and had also executed an unauthorized power of attorney in favour of Navin Kumar Jha, which violated
the terms and conditions of Letter of Intent without prior approval of the Corporation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid impugned order was passed without any prior notice or show-cause to the
petitioner, which was violative of the principles of equity and natural justice. He also argued that the said impugned order was totally arbitrary,
erroneous, mala fide and based on nonest grounds. It was further argued that the petitioner had entered into partnership agreement with the said
partners on 11.06.2005 and had issued power of attorney in favour of Navin Kumar Jha in June, 2005 when the respondents had failed to make
arrangement as provided in Letter of Intent dated 08.11.2003 but the said partnership deed or power of attorney was never acted upon and finally
the said partnership deed and the power of attorney were cancelled/revoked immediately after the petitioner entered into the agreement in question
on 06.05.2008 with the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the aforesaid facts are clear from the auditor''s report of the petitioner''s agency for the year
2006-07 to 2009-10, but the petitioner was given no chance to place his case and relevant papers before the authorities of the Corporation as
neither the copy of complaint was supplied to him nor any notice or show-cause was given.
8. The stand of the Union of India and its authorities (respondent nos. 1 and 2) is that the main contesting parties are Corporation and its
authorities and they were entitled to take decision which they had taken and is under challenge before this court, hence the Union of India and its
authorities (respondent nos. 1 and 2) have got no concern with the instant case.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities (respondent nos. 3 to 9) stated that by the impugned
order dated 13.01.2011 they had only asked show-cause from the petitioner and no order of termination had been passed by the authorities and
hence the writ petition is pre-mature as the petitioner should have filed his show-cause before the authorities of the Corporation, whereafter all the
matters would have been considered by the Corporation and its authorities and final order passed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities (respondent nos. 3 to 9) further submitted that entering into the facts and
dealing with the allegation at this stage will not be proper as the distributorship has been suspended pending investigation, which is not concluded
due to interim order of the High Court dated 18.03.2011, although the matter could have been decided within two months.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and its authorities (respondent nos. 3 to 9) averred that it was prima facie found from the
complaint that registered partnership and power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of third person were never cancelled and they
continued till 2009-10 and hence the impugned order of suspension was necessary as the matter will have to be investigated by the Corporation
after hearing the petitioner also, hence he claimed that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
12. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that in response to advertisement dated
18.02.2002 the petitioner being a scheduled caste candidate filed his application for distributorship of L.P.G. gas of the Corporation and after
interview etc. he was placed at serial no. 1 in the merit list and accordingly Letter of Intent dated 08.11.2003 was issued in favour of the petitioner
for Benipur Dev within the district of Darbhanga.
13. From a bare perusal of Letter of Intent dated 08.11.2003 it was quite apparent that since the petitioner belonged to reserved category of
scheduled caste, the respondent-Corporation had undertaken to develop the facilities required for enabling him to operate the distributorship and
to provide suitable plot of land for cylinder godown, facilities for show-room in trading area of the distributorship, delivery vehicles in sufficient
numbers, telephones and toilets etc., but it is not in dispute that more than two years passed and none of those facilities were provided by the
Corporation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was forced to enter into partnership deed dated 11.06.2005 with Khalid Saifullah Rahmani and
Navin Kumar Jha and also executed power of attorney in favour of Navin Kumar Jha. Furthermore there is no material to show that the said
partnership deed and power of attorney were ever acted upon and the petitioner had specifically stated on oath that the said partnership deed and
power of attorney were never acted upon nor the said partners of the petitioner had taken any step with respect to the matter in question. This fact
is also evident from report dated 24.04.2010 (Annexure-16) which was submitted after investigating the complaint by the Sales Officer, L.P.G.,
Begusarai of the Corporation.
14. It is also apparent from the records that power of attorney was revoked by Navin Kumar Jha on 23.03.2006 under notary and the
Corporation issued a revised Letter of Intent dated 30.03.2006 in favour of the petitioner for the same place after receiving a proposal from the
petitioner not opting for any financial assistance offered to him vide earlier Letter of Intent dated 08.11.2003 seeking permission for construction of
show-room and godowns at his own cost. It is also not disputed that immediately after receiving the second Letter of Intent dated 30.03.2006 the
petitioner sent notice to Khalid Saifullah Rahmani and Navin Kumar Jha for dissolution of partnership agreement vide deed dated 11.06.2005 and
finally the partnership deed with Khalid Saifullah Rahmani and Navin Kumar Jha was dissolved through notary on 08.08.2008 which was also
incorporated subsequently through registry office on 02.02.2010, where as power of attorney had also been revoked/cancelled through registry
office earlier.
15. It is also not in dispute that in between the petitioner himself arranged for capital, constructed godown after taking lease of land for ten years
and also took another rented premises on lease for a period of ten years for show-room purposes and only thereafter the final dealership
appointment letter dated 14.12.2006 was issued by the Corporation in the name of the petitioner, who started his work of L.P.G. distributorship
from 22.12.2006 and the Corporation also started delivering gas supply to the petitioner''s agency and subsequently an agreement was also
entered into between the petitioner and the Corporation on 06.05.2008 for the aforesaid purpose, which peacefully continued.
16. In spite of the aforesaid facts, it transpires that when the authorities of the Corporation received some complaint from some one, they issued
order dated 13.01.2011 i.e. several years after the cancellation/revocation of the deed of partnership and power of attorney, which had never
been acted upon and furthermore the said order was passed after about five years of continuous functioning of the petitioner''s distribution agency
without any hindrance.
17. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 13.01.2011 it is quite apparent that it is not a plain and simple order for filing show-cause nor
anywhere order of suspension pending enquiry had been mentioned therein, rather in the said letter it has been specifically stated that the complaint
against the petitioner had been fully investigated by the Corporation, whereafter the petitioner had been found guilty of violation of the terms and
conditions of the Indane distributorship agreement by entering into an unauthorized registered agreement of partnership and executing an
unauthorized power of attorney with third party without prior approval of the Corporation. Thereafter the petitioner had also been directed to
return back to the Corporation all the equipments (L.P.G. Cylinders and Pressure Regulators) lying with petitioner''s distributorship with proper
documentation and to handover all the relevant indsoft documents/stationery/copy of stock register/customers records and transfer all the Indane
customers attached with his distributorship inline with the guidelines from the Corporation in this regard.
18. From the verdicts of the aforesaid impugned order dated 13.01.2011 it is quite apparent that without giving any notice and any opportunity to
the petitioner to submit his explanation the respondent-authorities had already held the petitioner guilty and had punished him by directing him to
return back all the equipments, documents, materials and customers attached with petitioner''s distributorship, which clearly means that the
authorities of the Corporation made up their mind to end the distributorship with the petitioner, which is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in
the eye of law.
19. The aforesaid facts and circumstances also reveal that the authorities of the Corporation have failed to discharge their duties as per the specific
terms of Letter of Intent dated 08.11.2003 (Annexure-2) issued by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner for several years and when on the
basis of the second Letter of Intent dated 30.03.2006 and dealership appointment letter dated 14.12.2006 the petitioner started his work from
22.12.2006 and continued it for several years, the impugned action had been taken by the authorities only for concealing their earlier laches which
is quite evident from the record of this case. The said attitude of the authorities of the Corporation is also proved by the fact that even when vide
order dated 18.03.2011 this court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 13.01.2011 issued by the Deputy General Manager of the
Corporation, the authorities did not pay any heed to it and did not start supply of the materials, which was stopped by the aforesaid impugned
order.
20. In the aforesaid circumstances, the acts of the authorities in passing the impugned order dated 13.01.2011 and their subsequent acts cannot be
held to be sustainable in law and accordingly the impugned order dated 13.01.2011 (Annexure-1) passed by the Deputy General Manager of the
Corporation (respondent no. 8) is hereby quashed. The said authority is directed to return all the equipments, documents, records, etc. to the
petitioner and to transfer back all the Indane Customers earlier attached to petitioner''s distributorship and immediately start supply of L.P.G. gas
cylinders for distributorship to the petitioner''s agency. All the aforesaid acts should be completed within 15 days from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to file an M.J.C. case in this court for initiating a proceeding of
contempt against the concerned authority. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is allowed.