In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India recently issued a landmark judgement regarding the termination of dealership agreements, emphasizing the importance of upholding natural justice principles. This ruling carries implications for cases similar to that of the dealership agreement termination in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others. Let’s delve into the details of this crucial verdict that addresses key aspects of fairness and compliance in contractual relationships.
Facts
- The appellant(s) terminated the license of the respondent based on alleged irregularities in samples of High Speed Diesel (HSD) and Motor Spirit (MS) collected at the petrol pump.
- A show cause notice was issued to the respondent to respond to the alleged irregularities within 7 days.
- Suspension of supply was imposed on the respondent by the Senior Sales Officer after a Preliminary Test Report.
- A Joint Marker Test conducted by the authorities confirmed the initial findings of irregularities in the samples.
- The respondent challenged the termination of their license, leading to the present proceedings and the subsequent legal actions taken.
- Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the present respondent.
- Clause 7 of the 2005 order provides for specific provisions regarding sampling and testing.
- Gazetted Officers of the Central and State Governments, police officers of a certain rank, and authorized officers of a company can take samples and get them tested.
Also Read: Medical Negligence Case: Suket Hospital & Others vs. Claimant-Jyoti Devi
Arguments
- Arguing in support of the respondent’s case
- Relies on Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
- Cites Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors. v. Super Highway Services & Anr.
- Refers to Allied Motors Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation
- Mentions Nazir Ahmad v. The King Emperor and other relevant decisions
Also Read: State of Karnataka v. Jairaj: Quashing of FIR Reversed by Supreme Court
Analysis
- The Control Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 holds statutory force and violation leads to criminal prosecution.
- The guidelines require adherence to specific timelines for sampling and testing to maintain the integrity of the process.
- The termination of the agreement between the parties was due to the violation of specific clauses related to sample testing and quality.
- The appointment of a third-party agency for sample collection was deemed illegal as per the Control Order regulations.
- The procedure for sample collection, as outlined in the Control Order, must be followed when prosecuting a person for violation.
- The case of termination of agreement must strictly adhere to the rules and guidelines specified.
- The judgment in R.M. Service Centre highlights the importance of following Control Order procedures in cases of agreement termination.
- The actions taken by the authorities must comply with the Control Order regulations to ensure legality and fairness.
- Non-compliance with Control Order provisions during sample collection and testing was considered a violation of applicable rules and regulations.
- The provisions of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. should be followed to maintain the validity of investigations for potential penal consequences.
- Cancellation of dealership agreement is a serious matter and should be justified with fair and rule-adherent actions.
- Non-service of notice to the aggrieved party before termination is against the principle of natural justice and condemning someone unheard.
- It is the petitioner’s duty to ensure the aggrieved party is given a hearing or at least served with notice before termination.
- Judgments/orders passed by a coordinate bench should be respected by another bench of co-equal strength.
- Guidelines require prior notice to the dealer for termination matters, in accordance with principles of natural justice and fairness.
- The need for fairness in dealership agreement termination should not be made an empty formality.
- The dealer is required to take precautions against contamination of the Corporation’s products
- The Corporation has the right to terminate the Agreement if the dealer fails to adhere to safety instructions or contaminates products
- The Chief Regional Manager’s decision regarding product contamination is final and binding
- The Corporation can conduct quality control measures at its discretion
- The Corporation has the right to enter the dealer’s premises for inspection
- The dealer must comply with all rules and directions given by the Corporation
- Compliance with laws and regulations, including specifications set by the Corporation, is mandatory
- The Chief Regional Manager can make decisions detrimental to the Corporation’s interest without explanation
- The petitioner’s dealership was terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause.
- The judgment in question is not applicable to the present case.
- Maintainability of the writ petition is not an issue in this matter.
- Therefore, a writ petition would be maintainable in this case.
Also Read: Scrutiny Committee’s Decision Upheld in Caste Certificate Controversy
Decision
- The parties involved in the case were found to have contravened the terms of the dealership agreement
- The court followed the precedent set by the case of R.M. Service Centre
- All contentions raised by both parties were considered, but no other point was found to be valid or surviving for consideration
- As a result, the appeals were allowed, taking into account the termination of the agreement between the parties
Case Title: M/S. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs. DHARAMNATH SINGH (2024 INSC 449)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006509-006510 – 2024
