Summary
A petrol dealership cancelled for favouritism was continued under interim orders after the oil corporation failed to conduct a compliant fresh auction. The Court rejected conversion into a new dealership under a later policy, upheld the landowner’s protection against using her land for another dealer, and ordered inquiry into the corporation officials’ defaults.
Issues
- Whether interim continuation and subsequent policy justified a new dealership despite final cancellation for favouritism.
- Whether the corporation could reuse the former dealer’s land and what action followed its failure to comply with the earlier judgment.
Held
- On these facts, cancellation of the dealership also extinguished the associated lease. As the landowner refused to part with her land, a new dealer could not be inducted there; the earlier binding directions required identifying a different nearby site. (¶¶ 14–16, 21–22)
- Public authorities must distribute benefits fairly, transparently, objectively and without favouritism. Their discretion is coupled with public duty rather than an unrestricted power to confer private benefit. (¶ 23–33)
- Interim operation did not revive the dealership cancelled from1December1997. Time and the corporation’s defaults could not justify a fresh allotment that perpetuated the original unlawful advantage. (¶ 34)
- The corporation was directed to inquire internally into responsibility for its officials’ noncompliance, decide lawful action within two months and report to the Court; breach of that direction would be treated as contempt. (¶ 35)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; new-dealership direction set aside and cancellation effective1December1997 reiterated. Corporation to implement cancellation, consider a lawful fresh process at a determined location if needed in public interest, and complete the officials’ inquiry and report.