Chopperla Dhana Rama Lakshmi vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding force in the submissions of the respondents. The Court was not persuaded by the petitioner's contentions to stay or suspend the re-notification for dealership appointment. It reasoned that the respondents had deemed it appropriate to appoint a new dealer in the terminated vacancy to ensure uninterrupted distribution of cylinders. The Court found no irregularity or illegality in issuing the re-notification to fill the vacancy that arose from the petitioner's dealership termination. Therefore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that any appointment made pursuant to the re-notification would be subject to the final outcome of W.P.No.15247 of 2019. No specific issue was left undecided, but the operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, a dealer appointed in 2007, had her dealership agreement terminated on August 30, 2019, following a show-cause notice and explanation. She previously filed Writ Petition No. 15247 of 2019 challenging this termination, but did not obtain any stay order. During the pendency of that petition, the dealership was temporarily entrusted to a fourth respondent. Subsequently, a re-notification dated July 1, 2021, was issued for the re-appointment of a regular distributor for the Akividu, West Godavari District, against the termination vacancy. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging this re-notification, raising the same grounds as in her previous petition. The petitioner stated that penalties, including Rs. 55,251 for GST, were paid after irregularities were found.

Key Issues

1. Whether the re-notification dated 01.07.2021 for the appointment of a regular distributor in the Akividu, West Godavari District, is illegal and liable to be suspended, given the petitioner's prior challenge to her dealership termination. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that having paid penalties, including a GST penalty of Rs. 55,251, the termination of her dealership was illegal, and consequently, the subsequent re-notification for filling the vacancy was also bad. She argued that the termination itself was flawed, making any subsequent action based on it invalid. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that since the petitioner failed to obtain a stay order in her previous writ petition (W.P.No.15247 of 2019) challenging the termination, she cannot now question the subsequent re-notification. They submitted that re-notifying the dealership to fill the vacancy was necessary to maintain the supply channel without hindrance, even while the earlier writ petition was pending adjudication.