MOHD. JAMAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 08-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 469 
MOHD. JAMAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5228 of 2013 etc.) 
JULY 8, 2013. 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, J.] 
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: 
A 
B 
Policy regarding retail outlets of petroleum products -
c 
Earlier Policy recognizing land-owners as one of the 
categories to be offered dealership - Applications of land-
owners processed - Meanwhile policy suspended, lease 
deeds for definite terms entered into and by subsequent 
Policy, offering of dealership to land owners of Company 0 
Owned and Company Operated (COCO) outlets abandoned 
- Claim of landowners for dealership - Held: Concept of a 
dealership in respect of a retail outlet is completely alien to 
concept of a COCO unit - While the former deals with the right 
of dealer to independently operate the retail outlet, in the case 
E 
of a COCO unit, the entire set up of retail outlet is owned by 
Oil Companies and only day-to-day operation thereof is 
outsourced to Maintenance and Handling Contractor - With 
the discontinuance of the earlier policy of granting dealerships 
in respect of retail outlets and the introduction of a new policy 
of awarding M&H Contracts in respect of the COCO outlets, 
F 
the land owners who had entered into fresh lease agreements 
after the policy to grant dealerships had been suspended, 
cannot claim any right on the basis of the earlier policy in the 
absence of any Letter of Intent having been issued thereunder 
- Doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation 
G 
are not applicable - Claims of appellants/petitioners have to 
be treated on the basis of agreements subsequently entered 
into by Oil Companies - It will be open to appellants/ 
petitioners to approach the proper forum in the event they 
469 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 
A have suffered any damages and Joss, which they are entitled 
to recover in accordance with law - Promissory estoppel -
Doctrine of legitimate expectation. 
The case of the appellant in CA No. 5228 of 2013 was 
8 that in terms of the advertisement as per Policy/MDPM 
No.319/02 dated 8.10.2002, he applied for a retail outlet 
dealership for his land in the 'land owner's category'. 
Based on the recommendation dated 15.1.2003, made by 
the Dealer Selection Committee, the General Manager 
(ER) of the respondent No.2 Company recommended, on 
C 25th January, 2003, that the dealership be given to the 
appellant and directed that a Letter of Intent be issued in 
his favour on receipt of the explosive licence. Meanwhile, 
as claimed by the appellant, it was mutually agreed that 
till the issuance of the Letter of Intent, as an interim 
D arrangement, a nominee of the appellant would be 
appointed as the Maintenance and Handling Contractor 
to run the petrol pump. The appellant offered his land on 
lease to the Oil Company on 14.3.2003, and on 29.3.2003, 
a contract for Maintenance and Handling was executed 
E between the Oil Company and the brother and nominee 
of the appellant, for running the said petrol pump. 
Rs.25,00,000/- were spent in setting up the infrastructure. 
On 31.3.2003, the petrol pump was commissioned and 
started operating. The appellant executed a lease deed 
F in favour of the Oil Company at Rs. 21,000/- per month 
for a period of 15 years. However, by a policy circular No. 
05/0405 dated 30.3.2005, introduced by the Oil Company, 
existing land owners of the Jubilee Retail Outlets and the 
Company Owned and Company Operated Outlets were 
G disqualified from being appointed as dealers. It was the 
case of the appellant that on 6.9.2006, the Oil Company 
formulated a new policy whereby the concept of offering 
dealership to land owners was abandoned to the 
prejudice of the land owners whose Letters of Intent for 
H dealership were pending and where lands had also been 
MOHD. JAMAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
471 
taken on long term lease by the Oil Company at low rates 
A 
of rent, on the assurance that dealership under the 'land 
owners category' would be given to them. By virtue of the 
new policy, the Oil Company proposed to run outlets on 
their own and/or through Labour Contractors, in 
supersession of all earlier policy guidelines. The 
B 
appellant challenged the Notification dated 6.9.2006 in a 
writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. The 
other appeals, writ petitions and transferred cases 
involved the similar issues. 
It was, inter alia, contended on behalf of the land-
C 
holders that having act

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.