High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the orders in HRT 3.47 Dt.2210112021 passed by the 2nd respondent terminating the dealership of petitioner for selling petroleum products under the name and style M/s Taj Filling Station Sy.No. 99 AA at Kotepalli Village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District erstwhile Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, void abinitio and without following the due procedures as contemplated under marking discipline guidelines and also due procedures of law, colorable exercise of power besides violative of Principles of natural justice and Art. 14 and 21 of constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue/Revoke or Restore his dealership- lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in HRT 3.47 Dt.2210112021 passed by the 2nd respondent by directing the respondents to continue the dealership of the petitioner and to supply the Petroleum Products to the Petitioner pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1.to 3: SRI S.V.RAMANA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N,V. SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER: W.P. No.472O of 2O2l The petitioner aggrieved by the orders in HRT 3.47 dated

22.O1.2O2I passed by the respondent No.2, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, terminating the dealership of the petitioner for selling petroleum producls under thc name and style of M/ s. Taj Filling Station, Sy.No.99 AA at Kotepalli village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District, iilecl the present writ petition.

2. Fac[s of the case in bricf are that lhe petitioner was appointed as dealer for setling petroleurn products of the respondents' Corporation vide license agrcement dated 28.02.2O13 for a period of 15 years renewable thereafter evcry live years and that thc petitioner was selling the petroleum products of petrol by name ol Taj Filling Station in Sy.No. 11 AA at Kotepalli village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District by fulhlling all the requirements as per the agreement and also the marking guidelines formulated by the Central Government of India. The respondent authorities have inspected the premises of the petitioner on 06.ll.2014 and alleged to have found some irregularities in the h11ing station and pursuant to which a show cause notice dated 22.11.2017 was issued stating that the wire using Iegal metrologr seal was broken i.e. in MS Dispensing unit (L&T make bearing S.No.2323) the wire used for putting Iegal Metrolog, seal in pulsar was lound broken and that the petitioner has not maintained records of MS 1OKL from 04. I l.2OI7 to 06. I 7.2077 and such other ./ 2 NVSIi, J w.P No.,1720 ol202l irregularities were mentioned. In prLrsuant to the said show cause - notice, petitioner has subrnitted a detailed reply dated 01.01.2018. Without proper appreciation of the said reply, Lhe responded No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 22.O1.2021 HRT 3.47 by terminating thc dealership of thc petilioner and Lhcreby stopped the supply of the petroleum produc[s to the pelitioner. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal bcfore the competent authority and since the considerable time will take to decide the appeal, petitioner flled the present writ petition during pendency of the appeal.

3. The learned counsel Sri S.V. Ramana appearing for the petitioner, while placing a copy of the le tter dated 16.09.202 1 issued by the respondent No.2, would submit that the respondent No.2 has issued a letter dated 16.09.2021 ir-rforming thc petitioner that in view of the termination of the dealership of Lhe petitioner and to prefer an appeal, the terminated dealer is required . to deposit non-refundable appeal fee of Rs.S lakhs along with their appeal to the concerned OMC however, if appeal results in verdict in restoration of the dealership 50% of appeal fee amount shall be refunded.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents- would submit that since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the competent authority, at this juncture, no mandamus can be issued and the writ petition itself is not maintainable. J NVSti. J W P. No 1720 ol2O2l

5. At this point of time, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this writ petition may be disposed of with a - direction to the respondents to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

6. In that view of the matter, rvithout going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal stated to have been preferred before the competent authority ar-rd the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible subject to compliance of the petitioner fulfilling the conditions under the appeal provisions,

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, misceilaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. A MED ABDULLAH KHAN s TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Regd. and H.O at Bharat Bhavan, No. 4 and 6, Cirrumbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-4O0 001.

2. The South Head (Retail), No.'1, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Ranganathan Gardens, 11 Main Road, Anna Nagar-West, Chennai-600040. 3. The Territory Manager, (Retail), Hyderabad, Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd, Post Bag No.4, HCL, Charlapalli, Hyderabad- 500 051.

4. The Controller, Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of lndia, 209, PWD Building, Gandhi Nagar, Near OId Balaji Cinema Hall, Hyderabad.

5. One CC to SRI S.CHALAPATHI RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI S.V.RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies W HIGH COURT DATED:2810712025 c 12 AUE 2025 * a -cF,p;61r1', ORDER WP.No.4720 ot 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I \? g €