9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossible for them to restore his dealership. It was accordingly informed to the respondent vide letter dated 13.03.2013 - the writ Court (Single Judge) was, therefore, justified in dismissing the respondent's writ petition and upholding the rejection on the ground that the High Court cannot interfere in the administrative decision of IOC and nor it can substitute its decision by acting as an Appellate Court over such decision in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is more so when such decision is based on reasons involving no arbitrariness of any nature therein which may call for any interference by the High Court. The Division Bench committed an error in interpreting the award. The Division Bench proceeded on entirely wrong assumption that since the award was in respondent's favour, the IOC had to simply issue a consequential order in compliance thereof directing the IOC to revive the respondent's dealership and restore the supply of fuel to the respondent. Appeal allowed - the impugned order of the Division Bench set aside and the order of the Single Judge (writ Court) restored. - Civil Appeal No.6748 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.33100 of 2015] - - - Dated:- 17-7-2018 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other words, in these inspections, no totalizer seal was found in place. 9) It is these inspections, which gave rise to issuance of show cause notice by the IOC to the respondent on 27.08.2008. The show cause notice, after setting out the details of the inspections, proceeded that why the dealership agreement of the respondent dated 31.08.1989 be not terminated for the alleged breaches noticed in the inspections. The respondent was called upon to file his reply. The respondent filed his reply. 10) Not satisfied with the reply filed by the respondent, the IOC, vide letter dated 11.03.2009 terminated the respondent's dealership agreement. 11) The respondent felt aggrieved by the termination of his dealership agreement and invoked clause 69 of the dealership agreement which provided for resolution of disputes by the Arbitrator arising in relation to the dealership agreement and he requested the IOC to refer the matter to the Arbitrator for his decision. The IOC acceded to the respondent s request and accordingly referred the matter relating to termination of his dealership to the sole Arbitrator. 12) The Arbitrator then embarked upon the reference and passed his re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hallenge made to the rejection of the respondent's representation and upheld the same as being just and proper calling no interference. The respondent felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench. 19) By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the respondent s appeal and while setting aside the order of the Single Judge issued a mandamus to the IOC to restore the respondent's dealership and resume the supply of fuel to his fuel station. The operative part of the order of the Division Bench contained in Para 21 and 22 reads as under: 21. The application filed by the Corporation to set aside the award has already been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The Corporation is now taking advantage of the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge while confirming the award to consider the representation. There is absolutely no need to submit a representation and passing orders thereon by the Corporation in view of the conclusiveness reached to the award setting aside the order of termination. Since the supply was stopped only on account of the order of termination of dealership, naturally supplies should resume immediately after the award an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration of his case for restoration of his dealership by the IOC but not beyond it. Indeed, according to learned counsel, if the award had been in favour of the respondent, then in such case, there was no need for the Arbitrator and Single Judge to give liberty to the respondent to apply for reconsideration of his case. 27) In the third place, learned counsel urged that once the IOC considered the case of the respondent and found no case to grant him any relief much less the benefit of restoration of his dealership, the issue attained finality between the parties. 28) It was his submission that the Division Bench, in this circumstance, in its writ jurisdiction had no power to sit as an Appellate Court over the decision of the IOC and direct restoration of the respondent's dealership. 29) It is mainly these three submissions, the learned senior counsel elaborated his submissions by referring to various documents on record. 30) In reply, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned senior counsel, supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order does not call for any interference and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal. 31) Having heard the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same arose after the award was passed and upheld by the Single Judge. It has, therefore, nothing to do with the award and nor it could be linked with the arbitration proceedings. 37) In our opinion, it was solely within the discretion of the IOC they being the principal to decide as to whether the respondent's dealership should be restored or not and, if so, on what grounds. The IOC considered the case of the respondent and after taking into account all the facts and circumstances appearing in the respondent s working, came to a conclusion that it was not possible for them to restore his dealership. It was accordingly informed to the respondent vide letter dated 13.03.2013. 38) In our opinion, the writ Court (Single Judge) was, therefore, justified in dismissing the respondent's writ petition and upholding the rejection on the ground that the High Court cannot interfere in the administrative decision of IOC and nor it can substitute its decision by acting as an Appellate Court over such decision in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is more so when such decision is based on reasons involving no arbitrariness of any nature therein which may call for any interferenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
