Petitioners challenged an order refusing re-constitution of a dealership allotment after their father's death. The court held that substantial investment was not made and petitioners failed to respond to queries, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No.10842 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.10842 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.05.2012
Jitender and another
Petitioners
VERSUS
Union of India and others
Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Shri Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for Mr. S.R.Hooda ,Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for respondents no. 2 to 4
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioners have filed the instant petition with a prayer that order dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure P-6) be quashed as the respondents have refused to permit the re-structuring/re-constitution of the allotment made in favour of the late father of petitioner no.1 and husband of petitioner no.2.
There is consensus on facts that the father of petitioner no.1 was granted the letter of intent for retail outlet dealership and SKO-LDO dealerships in the year 2006 but before the whole project could materialize, father of petitioner no.1 died in October, 2006. The petitioners submitted an application on 27.12.2006 praying for re-constitution of the allotment in their favour. On 24.6.2008 the respondents wrote to the petitioners seeking information from them regarding the progress made for installation of new retail outlet dealership. The said communication is on record as Annexure P-4. The petitioners responded by a letter dated 17.8.2008 which was
C.W.P. No.10842 of 2010 (O&M) 2
silent on the aspect of the query raised by the respondents. Thereafter the petitioners did not take up the matter any further and consequently, in the year 2010 by virtue of Annexure P-6 an advertisement was issued for fresh allotment on the site in question.
This is the immediate cause of grievance of the petitioners who contend that the re-constitution of the allotment was not permitted by the respondents on erroneous grounds and that they cannot be permitted to go ahead with the fresh allotment.
The respondents have filed their reply in response to the notice of motion having been issued by this Court and have stated in para 2 of their reply that even though a letter of intent had been issued in favour of father of petitioner no.1 yet no substantial investment had been made in this regard and neither was any information supplied to them despite the fact that response was given to the petitioners in the year 2008. A specific averment was made in the reply that the deceased (letter of intent holder) had not incurred any amount towards investment as no land had been purchased and only an agreement of lease had been executed with one Naresh son of Sh.Jai Narain, r/o Village Khanpur, District Sonepat without there being an actual lease deed existing. Further it has been averred by them that no fencing or wall was erected and the wall was never made fit for the purpose for which it was intended i.e setting up of a retail outlet.
Reference has been made to the aspect of substantial investment as this is one of the factors upon which the re-constitution in favour of any other subsequent legal heir is contingent upon. Relevant extract of clause 2.1.1 of the policy guidelines is extracted herebelow:-
“2.1.1 In the event of death/incapacitation due to
C.W.P. No.10842 of 2010 (O&M) 3
serious illness/accident (to be certified by a Medical Board recognized by the Government) of an LOI holder before commissioning of the dealership, the LOI can be transferred to his/her legal heir in case substantial investment towards commissioning of the dealership has been made by the LOI holder before his/her death/incapacitation.
xxxx
Substantial investment would be defined as
under for uniform understanding:
(a) xxxxx
(b) In respect of 'B' site ROs where the entire investment in land and facilities are to be done by the LOI holder, the provision of transfer of LOI would be applicable. The minimum qualifying consideration of substantial investment would be that the LOI holder has arranged a suitable land for setting up of a retail outlet and carried out land development work including compound wall/fencing.
The legal heir will have to satisfy multiple dealership norms and other criteria for normal dealer selection except age and educational qualification.”
The petitioners have not denied the averments made in the reply and neither they have shown any material to this Court which would persuade this Court to observe that the averments made in the reply are incorrect. It is evident from the policy that there is no impediment in the way of re-constitution of the allotment provided it is shown that substantial investment has been made towards commissioning of the retail outlet
C.W.P. No.10842 of 2010 (O&M) 4
before the death or incapacitation of the intended allottee; besides the petitioners did not respond to the query raised by the respondents and no material has been placed on record to this effect to persuade the Court to hold a contrary view.
In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any subsisting right in favour of the petitioners to press their claim for re-constitution of the dealership, moreso, when the claim itself seems to have been raked up belatedly. Once the query was raised in June, 2008 it was the duty of the petitioners to be prompt in their approach in either intimating the respondents regarding the substantial investment made or even in approaching this Court but the petition has been filed only after a fresh advertisement was inserted in the year 2010. Looking at it from any angle, the petitioners have no subsisting right in their favour either under law or in equity which would warrant an interference by this Court.
Hence, dismissed.
May 18, 2012 rekha
(Mahesh Grover) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can quash the respondents' order refusing to permit re-constitution of an allotment in favour of legal heirs of a deceased dealer.
Whether the petitioners satisfied the mandatory requirement of substantial investment in the land under the dealership policy guidelines before the death of the original allottee.
Jitender and another
Union of India
MAHESH GROVER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
