Appeal allowed, judgment set aside. Court emphasizes adherence to agreement terms, equitable distribution.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment in favor of the respondent. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no wrongful intent by the oil company in rectifying distribution errors. It emphasized adherence to agreement terms and equitable kerosene distribution among agents, denying the respondent an independent quota for Barisha due to its exclusion from the 2000 agreement. The court upheld the rectification as necessary for fairness among all agents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the exclusion of Barisha from the kerosene distribution agreement.
2. Equitable distribution of kerosene oil among agents.
3. Adherence to principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the exclusion of Barisha from the kerosene distribution agreement:
- The appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, had initially appointed the respondent, a partnership firm, as an agent for distributing kerosene oil in the district of 24-Parganas (South) and Kolkata. The original agreement in 1966 included Barisha. However, subsequent agreements in 1994 and 2000 did not mention Barisha.
- The respondent moved the court in 2000, arguing that Barisha should be included in the agreement. The court disposed of the petition based on an inter-office memo stating that Barisha was part of Behala, and thus, not separately mentioned.
- The oil company continued supplying kerosene to Barisha until a vigilance enquiry revealed the absence of an agreement for Barisha, leading to the cessation of supply.
- The respondent filed another writ petition in 2001, arguing that the discontinuation of supply without notice was illegal and violated natural justice principles. The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the stoppage of supply without notice could not be sustained.

2. Equitable distribution of kerosene oil among agents:
- The court had previously directed the Director of Consumer Goods to convene a meeting to establish a uniform formula for kerosene distribution. The meeting resulted in several resolutions, including the principle that no agent should receive more than 250 KL per month and that distribution should be equitable.
- The oil company reviewed the distribution process and found discrepancies, including the unauthorized supply to Barisha. They rectified this by withdrawing the Barisha quota and redistributing it among other agents, maintaining the 250 KL benchmark.
- The respondent's quota for other units was also adjusted accordingly.

3. Adherence to principles of natural justice:
- The respondent argued that the cessation of supply to Barisha without notice violated natural justice principles, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors., which emphasized the need for reasonableness and notice before discontinuing supplies.
- The court noted that the respondent had not raised the issue of Barisha during the meeting convened by the Director of Consumer Goods, where the 250 KL limit was established. The court found that the oil company's rectification of the mistake was justified and did not violate natural justice principles.
- The court emphasized that the respondent could not claim a right to an independent quota for Barisha, as the 2000 agreement did not include it. The oil company was entitled to rectify the mistake to ensure equitable distribution among all agents.

Conclusion:
- The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated April 1, 2003, were set aside. The writ petition of the respondent was dismissed.
- The court found no mala fide intention on the part of the oil company in rectifying the distribution mistake and emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the agreement and ensuring equitable distribution among all agents.

---