Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th December, 2022
52893/2022 EHSAAS FILLING STATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Swadha Gupta, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Mr. Anurag Dubey, Advocates (M-8800860692)
Through: Ms. Mala Narayan, Mr. Shashwat Goel & Ms. Ramya Soni, Advocates.
(M:9811017666)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Ehsaas Filling Station which was running a Retail Outlet under a Dealership Agreement (hereinafter ‘dealership agreement’) with the Respondent- Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter ‘IOCL’). The Petitioner is seeking quashing of the suspension of its retail outlet vide emails dated 14th September, 2020 and 15th September, 2020. The writ petition is also seeking a direction for quashing of the show cause for termination of dealership which was issued on 17th December, 2020 by the Respondent.
3. The Petitioner had entered into the dealership agreement with the Respondent, dated 3rd June, 2014 for running a retail outlet for a period of 15 years at Village Bahalgarh, District Sonepat, Haryana. The case of the Petitioner is that over the years 2014-2018, various grievances were raised by it against IOCL. Thereafter, in December, 2019, the Petitioner also obtained a gas station license from Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) for running a gas station in at the same premises. The Petitioner also avers that between 2019-20, several complaints were made by it against the Respondent and its officials with various authorities including the Central Vigilance Commission.
4. On 14th September, 2020 and 15th September, 2020, the Petitioner received emails intimating that upon an MDT Inspection conducted by the team of IOCL, various irregularities were observed and, accordingly, sale from the retail outlet was being suspended till further notice.
5. The show cause notice has then been issued to the Petitioner on 17th December, 2021 as per which IOCL called upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why due to breaches of the agreement, the dealership agreement should not be terminated. It is not in dispute that communications have been exchanged between the parties.
6. At this stage, it is relevant to note that a meeting took place on 26th March, 2022 between the Petitioner and IOCL’s representative where several points were discussed and it was agreed in the said meeting as under:
7. In the meantime, the arbitration clause in the dealership agreement, has been invoked by both the Petitioner and the Respondent and the process of appointment of Arbitrator is stated to be underway.
8. Under these circumstances, the following writ petition has been filed. The prayers in the writ petition are as under: “a) A writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to set aside the arbitrary suspension of sales at the Retail Outlet (“RO”) vide E-mail dated 14.09.2020 and 15.09.2020 and all other further consequential action of the Respondent No. 1 including issuance of show cause notice for termination of the dealership dated 17.12.2021 issued by the Respondent No.1, whereby the Respondents arbitrarily suspended functioning of Retail Outlet; and/or, b) A Writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the complaints/communication that are under the possession of the Respondents. c) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
9. Heard. Ms Gupta, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that as per the guidelines of the IOCL, the suspension of sales at the retail outlet cannot be made without issuing notice to the Petitioner and without hearing the Petitioner. She submits that the suspension order issued by IOCL is contrary to IOCL’s own guidelines. She submits that the suspension could, at best, be for a period of 15 days, as per IOCL’s own policies. On the other hand, Ms. Narayan, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that in terms of the minutes dated 26th March, 2022 various compliances were to be undertaken by the Petitioner for which no confirmation has been received by IOCL. Hence, IOCL cannot to be blamed in this matter.
10. The crux of the dispute, in the present case, arises out of the dealership agreement. The dealership agreement has an Arbitration clause which both parties have invoked. Be that as it may insofar as the plea of violation of natural justice prior to suspension of the sales from the retail outlet is concerned, much water has flown since the said suspension took place.
11. The minutes of meeting are clear to the effect that the Petitioner who is the dealer had to comply with various safety points in terms of the letter vide ref. PDO/RS/MDE/EHSSAS/FS dated 15th September, 2022. It is after the compliance of safety points that the sales could be started after recalibration of the DUs by the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that IOCL is willing to provide assistance as per IOCL’s subsidy policy as agreed in the Minutes of the said meeting.
12. Since both parties have arrived at a consensus on the manner to proceed in terms of the minutes dated 26th March, 2022 and the fact that the arbitration has been invoked, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition in the present case. The entire dispute is merely contractual. The suspension was also effected more than two years ago.
13. If, however, the Petitioner wishes to proceed in accordance with the Minutes as agreed on 26th March, 2022, the Petitioner is free to do so in which case a letter of confirmation agreeing to abide by the said minutes of the meeting shall be signed by the Petitioner within one week and sent to IOCL.
14. Upon receipt of the said letter, IOCL shall proceed in terms of the agreement dated 26th March, 2022.
15. With these observations, the present petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 7, 2022 dj/am