WP/40660/2014 of Alladi Srinivasulu, Vs The Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum, on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

Earlier the policy of the respondent Corporation was toestablish company owned company operated retail outlet bytaking the land on lease. When the land is taken on lease asper the earlier policy, the dealership was given to the ownerof the land in the year 2006. This policy was subsequentlychanged and the system of alienating the dealership to theowner of the land is dispensed with. As per the earlier policy,the dealership was given to the owner of the land or hisnominee. Initially, the Maintenance and Handling Contract(M&H Contract) was granted for a period of one year. Challenging the change in the policy, batch of writ petitionsare instituted. Those writ petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, writ appeals are filed. Interregnum, following theearlier interim order of the Supreme Court, a Division Benchof this Court directed the M&H Contractor to continue itsdealership. Accordingly, the M&H Contractor continued tooperate the dealership beyond one year till the disposal of thewrit appeals. The batch of writ appeals were disposed of vide judgment, dated 09.07.2014, following the decision of theSupreme Court in Mohd. Jamal Vs. Union of India andanother[[1]]. Following the judgment of the Supreme Courtand consequent to the dismissal of the writ appeals, a noticeis issued on 23.12.2014 terminating the M&H Contractawarded to the petitioner. The petitioner challenges thesame.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends thatthis writ petitioner is bound by the judgment of Division Benchof this Court in W.P.No.127 of 2008 and batch and thedecision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Jamal’s Case (1Supra).The learned counsel for the petitioner furthersubmits that since no new dealer is identified, till a newdealer is identified the petitioner may be continued.

3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that initially,the contract was only for a period of one year. Thoughcontract was not renewed to persons like petitioner, but theycontinued on account of the interim orders. The judgment ofthe Supreme Court clearly bars such a claim. No right isvested in the petitioner to continue as M&H contractorbeyond a period of contract and even after the policy ischanged. The respondent Corporation is not in favour ofcontinuing the company owned company operated dealershipsystem.

4. Having regard to the same and since the issueis concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd.Jamal’s Case (1 Supra) and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.127 of 2008 and batch, the claim ofthe petitioner for further continuation is not valid and the WritPetition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no orderas to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in thiswrit petition shall stand closed.

_________________

P.NAVEEN

RAO, J

Date: 30[th] December, 2014

KL

Date: 30[th] December, 2014

KL

[1](2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 201