Telangana High Court
WP/12976/1997 of M/s. Samj Enterprises, Regd Office at Hyderabad,rep.by its Vs Union of India, on 22 December 2006
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12976 of 1997 Dated 22nd December, 2006 Between M/s. Samaj Enterprises, a partnership firm Having its regd.office at Hyderabad, rep by its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 12976of 1997
Dated 22[nd] December, 2006
Between
M/s. Samaj Enterprises, a partnership firmHaving its regd.office at Hyderabad, rep by itsPartners Sri Syed Azizuddin Ali Khan and anor.
….Petitioner
and
Union of India, rep. By its Secretary,Ministry of Petroleum Central Secretariat,New Delhi and ors.
…Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 12976OF 1997
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, entered into a dealershipagreement dated 10-09-1976 with M/s.Caltex India Limited for carryingon business in petroleum products by running a outlet. Afteracquisition of shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited byprovisions of Act 17 of 1977, the petitioner-firm had continued asdealer of third respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioner-firm was running retail outlet at Nampally in Hyderabad.
But however, on the ground that it had violated the agreement,dealership agreement was cancelled. The same was the subjectmatter of Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No. 19603 of 1993. Thesaid Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 28-11-1995.
The petitioner, subsequently, made a request to the respondentsfor resitement of the said retail outlet by shifting the same fromNampally to Toli Chowk Cross Roads. When such request was madefor resitement, the Chief Regional Manager of third respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited addressed a letter dated 30-01-1992 expressing their willingness to take the site at Toli ChowkCross Roads junction, belonging to a trust, on lease directly in favourof Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for a period of twentyyears. But, however, the respondent-Corporation, subsequently did notaccept the proposal for resitement and the same was communicated tothe petitioner.
In this Writ Petition, it is submitted by Sri P.Venugopal, learnedCounsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the earlierjudgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19603 of 1993, and, furtherin view of the letter dated 30-01-1992 addressed by the thirdrespondent, the petitioner is entitle for shifting/resitement of thepetroleum outlet to Towli Chowk Cross Roads.
On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar,learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that as muchas Head Office of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited hadalready taken a decision rejecting the request of the petitioner forresitement, the petitioner is not entitle for any relief. Further, it issubmitted by the learned Counsel that even earlier also, in spite of specific request for directions for resitement, no orders were passed,for resitement. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot re-agitatethe matter in this Writ Petition.
During the course of arguments, it is fairly submitted by SriP.Venugopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that thepetitioner-firm is not prepared to run the retail outlet at the place, whereit operated earlier. It appears that the said site was developed bymaking constructions. The only grievance of the petitioner is that asmuch as the respondents have agreed for resitement, it is obligatory onthe part of respondents to grant dealership to run the outlet, where it isproposed to re-site.
Though this Court allowed Writ Petition No. 19603 of 1993 byorder dated 28-11-1995, by which, the order of termination of earlieragreement was quashed, but however, it is to be seen, the petitioner isnot interested to run the outlet at the place for which agreement wasentered into. In the letter dated 30-01-1992 issued to the petitioner bythe Chief Regional Manager of the respondent-Corporation, they haveonly shown their willingness for resitement by obtaining site on leasedirectly in favour of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Thepetitioner is only a dealer, and, it is for the respondent-corporation todecide for resitement of an existing outlet. Merely because, at oneplace the dealership is granted to the petitioner partnership firm, inabsence of any decision for resitement by the respondent-Corporation,the petitioner cannot ask for resitement as a matter of right. Though theChief Regional Manager of the respondent-Corporation had expressedhis willingness for taking the site on lease for location of the outlet, butfinally, the Head Office of the respondent-Corporation had not takenany decision to obtain such site on lease. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot seek any direction by way of Mandamus forresitement of the petrol outlet on the proposed site in the absence ofany decision to that effect by the respondent-Corporation. Even thisCourt, in the order dated 28-11-1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 19603of 1993 had not granted any direction for resitement. As such, thepetitioner is not entitle for relief as prayed, in this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordinglydismissed. No order as to costs.
---------------------------------------
JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
DATED: 29---12—2006.Msnr