Petrol Pump Dealers Association vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited And Others

Held

The Court held that there was no discrimination as far as "A" and "B" sites were concerned because they operate in different fields serving different objectives. Category "A" sites were described as a "largesse" to dealers who do not own land or infrastructure, while "B" sites require the applicant to own land and build the superstructure at their own expense. The Court found the disqualification clause to be a reasonable classification and a restriction on the right to do business, maintaining non-discrimination between the two types of sites. The Court also found no sufficient locus standi for the Association, stating their prayer appeared to be an attempt to create a monopoly and that no prejudice was caused to its members by the impugned terms. The Court found no valid reason to interfere with the petition.

Facts

The Petrol Pump Dealers Association filed a writ petition challenging Clause 10 of a brochure issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. This clause pertains to the disqualification criteria for selecting dealers for retail outlets. The Association argued that the disqualification clause, particularly regarding multiple dealership norms, was discriminatory. They contended that the distinction made between "A" sites (Corporation owned) and "B" sites (Dealer owned) in the context of these norms was illogical and violated the principle of equality. The Association had previously made a representation to the oil companies via email on December 13, 2018, highlighting their grievance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disqualification clause, specifically Clause 10(i) concerning multiple dealership norms, as applied to "A"/"CC" sites and "B"/"DC" sites, is discriminatory and violates the equality provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly Article 14. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the distinction drawn between "A" sites and "B" sites in the multiple dealership norms was illogical and created an unequal playing field. They contended that if multiple dealership norms were to be relaxed, such relaxation should apply equally to all dealers, irrespective of the type of site they operate, thereby ensuring equal opportunity. They relied on the principle of equality and the right to equal opportunity. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents (oil companies) argued that "A" sites and "B" sites operate in different fields and serve different objectives. They contended that the classification was reasonable and inherent in maintaining non-discrimination between the two types of sites. They asserted that there was no inter se discrimination or unfair discrimination within the two types of sites.