Smt. Mamta Rani And Another v. Others

1. Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

2. Since both the writ petitions involve identical questions of fact and law arising out of the termination of dealership and subsequent advertisement for re-allotment of the same location, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the same have been clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being decided by this common order. 2 WRIC No. 2072 of 2014

3. The present writ petitions have been preferred inter alia with the following reliefs: WRIT - C No. - 2072 of 2014: "(a) call for record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 01.01.2014 (contained in Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) passed by the Territory Manager (Retail), Bareilly, the respondent no.3, terminating Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence Agreement dated 25.03.2004 executed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in favour of Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta (now dead and being represented by his widow Smt. Mamta Rani, the petitioner no. 1. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and its subordinates etc. not to pass any order or draw any proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid impugned order dated 01.01.2014 (contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition)." WRIT - C No. - 43064 of 2018: "(a) call for record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing Advertisement published on 25.11.2018 (contained in Annexure No.14 to the writ petition) so far as it relates to Location at S.No.488 viz. with regard to Village Asafpur, Bisauli - Bilari Road, District Budaun is concerned."

4. Petitioner no.1 in both writ petitions, Smt. Mamta Rani, is the widow of Late Manoj Kumar Gupta, who was the sole proprietor of a petrol pump, the licence of which stood in his name. The Division Bench, while entertaining Writ - C No. 2072 of 2014 on 15.01.2014, passed the following order: "Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. 3 WRIC No. 2072 of 2014 Petitioner Mamta Rani is the widow of Late Manoj Kumar Gupta who was the sole proprietor of a petrol pump, the licence whereof was existing in his name. The respondent-Corporation appears to have got conducted an inspection with regard to an allegation of sale of adulterated petroleum products. This inspection was carried out during the life time of the husband of the petitioner. Unfortunately, before any action could be taken Manoj Kumar Gupta died on 31.12.2012. The inspection had been carried out more than a month prior to that on 9.11.2012. The petitioner on the death of her husband immediately informed the respondent-Petroleum Corporation about the said demise of her husband. Petroleum Corporation has now after more than a year by the impugned order dated 1.1.2014 terminated the said dealership on two grounds. The first ground is with regard to the alleged adulteration having been found in the samples and secondly on the ground that the petitioner's husband has died and as per Clause 13(b) of the agreement the dealership deserves to be terminated. The challenge raised to the said order is on the ground that firstly according to the impugned order itself this action has been taken without issuing any show cause notice which is admitted in clause 6 of the findings of the impugned order. Secondly, Sri Asthana has invited the attention of the Court to sub-clause (b) of Clause 13 to contend that the action of determination of the agency has to be taken at once at the option of the Petroleum Corporation and if this option is not exercised, then the agreement shall continue between the company and the surviving or the continuing partners of the licensees. He, therefore, submits that in view of the fact that the agency will be deemed to be continued and had actually been continued for full one year, the respondent-Corporation was under an obligation to have issued a notice to the petitioner prior to taking any action. Prima facie, the matter requires scrutiny and, therefore, we provide as an 4 WRIC No. 2072 of 2014 interim measure that until further orders of the Court the respondent- Corporation shall not take any coercive steps pursuant to the impugned order against the petitioner. Three weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List thereafter."

5. When the matters were taken up today, Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent – M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., placed reliance upon the judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed by a Division Bench in Writ – C No. 3606 of 2014 (Smt. Kanak Agarwal and 2 Others vs. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others) and submitted that the present cases are squarely covered by the said judgment. He further submitted that initially both matters were clubbed with Smt. Kanak Agarwal (supra); however, the said case was subsequently delinked and heard separately, and the Division Bench has finally decided the controversy, which has attained finality. He submits that he has no objection if the present writ petitions are also decided in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph 14 of the judgment in Smt. Kanak Agarwal and Others (supra).

6. Confronted with the aforesaid situation, Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to press their reliefs in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment in Smt. Kanak Agarwal and Others (supra), which are reproduced below for ready reference: "13. However, in so far as the observations in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order dated 13.12.2013 is concerned, which reads, "MS and HSD that was being sold from the retail outlet was also found to be adulterated and was not the same product which was supplied by the company to the retail outlet in violation of terms contained in the dealership agreement which itself would have resulted in termination of dealership." 5 WRIC No. 2072 of 2014 it is pertinent to mention here that the reason that could have resulted in termination of the dealership cannot be ascribed to the dealer without a proper decision being taken by the respondent-corporation prior to which due opportunity to show cause and hearing was accorded to the dealer. Be that as it may, the observation quoted above made by the respondent- corporation in the impugned order is otios and redundant inasmuch as the show cause notice could not be replied to by the dealer as he had died.

14. It is pertinent to mention here that the impugned order has not rejected the claim of the petitioners for reconstitution of the firm. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to seek constitution/reconstitution of the firm in accordance with law and extant policy of the respondent- corporation in this regard."

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced, it is evident that the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Smt. Kanak Agarwal and Others (supra). Since the issues involved are identical, the order dated

01.01.2014 impugned in Writ - C No. 2072 of 2014 and the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 impugned in Writ - C No. 43064 of 2018 shall be governed by the said decision. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment, with liberty to the petitioners to seek reconstitution of the dealership in accordance with law and the prevailing policy of the respondent-Corporation. (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) October 28, 2025 NLY

1. Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

2. Since both the writ petitions involve identical questions of fact and law arising out of the termination of dealership and subsequent advertisement for re-allotment of the same location, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the same have been clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being decided by this common order. 2 WRIC No. 2072 of 2014

3. The present writ petitions have been preferred inter alia with the following reliefs: WRIT - C No. - 2072 of 2014: "(a) call for record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 01.01.2014 (contained in Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) passed by the Territory Manager (Retail), Bareilly, the respondent no.3, terminating Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence Agreement dated 25.03.2004 executed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in favour of Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta (now dead and being represented by his widow Smt. Mamta Rani, the petitioner no. 1. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and its subordinates etc. not to pass any order or draw any proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid impugned order dated 01.01.2014 (contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition)." WRIT - C No. - 43064 of 2018: "(a) call for record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing Advertisement published on 25.11.2018 (contained in Annexure No.14 to the writ petition) so far as it relates to Location at S.No.488 viz. with regard to Village Asafpur, Bisauli - Bilari Road, District Budaun is concerned."

4. Petitioner no.1 in both writ petitions, Smt. Mamta Rani, is the widow of Late Manoj Kumar Gupta, who was the sole proprietor of a petrol pump, the licence of which stood in his name. The Division Bench, while entertaining Writ - C No. 2072 of 2014 on 15.01.2014, passed the following order: "Issue notice to the respondents returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. 3 WRIC No. 2072 of 2014 Petitioner Mamta Rani is the widow of Late Manoj Kumar Gupta who was the sole proprietor of a petrol pump, the licence whereof was existing in his name. The respondent-Corporation appears to have got conducted an inspection with regard to an allegation of sale of adulterated petroleum products. This inspection was carried out during the life time of the husband of the petitioner. Unfortunately, before any action could be taken Manoj Kumar Gupta died on 31.12.2012. The inspection had been carried out more than a month prior to that on 9.11.2012. The petitioner on the death of her husband immediately informed the respondent-Petroleum Corporation about the said demise of her husband. Petroleum Corporation has now after more than a year by the impugned order dated 1.1.2014 terminated the said dealership on two grounds. The first ground is with regard to the alleged adulteration having been found in the samples and secondly on the ground that the petitioner's husband has died and as per Clause 13(b) of the agreement the dealership deserves to be terminated. The challenge raised to the said order is on the ground that firstly according to the impugned order itself this action has been taken without issuing any show cause notice which is admitted in clause 6 of the findings of the impugned order. Secondly, Sri Asthana has invited the attention of the Court to sub-clause (b) of Clause 13 to contend that the action of determination of the agency has to be taken at once at the option of the Petroleum Corporation and if this option is not exercised, then the agreement shall continue between the company and the surviving or the continuing partners of the licensees. He, therefore, submits that in view of the fact that the agency will be deemed to be continued and had actually been continued for full one year, the respondent-Corporation was under an obligation to have issued a notice to the petitioner prior to taking any action. Prima facie, the matter requires scrutiny and, therefore, we provide as an 4 WRIC No. 2072 of 2014 interim measure that until further orders of the Court the respondent- Corporation shall not take any coercive steps pursuant to the impugned order against the petitioner. Three weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List thereafter."

5. When the matters were taken up today, Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent – M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., placed reliance upon the judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed by a Division Bench in Writ – C No. 3606 of 2014 (Smt. Kanak Agarwal and 2 Others vs. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others) and submitted that the present cases are squarely covered by the said judgment. He further submitted that initially both matters were clubbed with Smt. Kanak Agarwal (supra); however, the said case was subsequently delinked and heard separately, and the Division Bench has finally decided the controversy, which has attained finality. He submits that he has no objection if the present writ petitions are also decided in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph 14 of the judgment in Smt. Kanak Agarwal and Others (supra).

6. Confronted with the aforesaid situation, Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to press their reliefs in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment in Smt. Kanak Agarwal and Others (supra), which are reproduced below for ready reference: "13. However, in so far as the observations in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order dated 13.12.2013 is concerned, which reads, "MS and HSD that was being sold from the retail outlet was also found to be adulterated and was not the same product which was supplied by the company to the retail outlet in violation of terms contained in the dealership agreement which itself would have resulted in termination of dealership." 5 WRIC No. 2072 of 2014 it is pertinent to mention here that the reason that could have resulted in termination of the dealership cannot be ascribed to the dealer without a proper decision being taken by the respondent-corporation prior to which due opportunity to show cause and hearing was accorded to the dealer. Be that as it may, the observation quoted above made by the respondent- corporation in the impugned order is otios and redundant inasmuch as the show cause notice could not be replied to by the dealer as he had died.

14. It is pertinent to mention here that the impugned order has not rejected the claim of the petitioners for reconstitution of the firm. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to seek constitution/reconstitution of the firm in accordance with law and extant policy of the respondent- corporation in this regard."

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced, it is evident that the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Smt. Kanak Agarwal and Others (supra). Since the issues involved are identical, the order dated

01.01.2014 impugned in Writ - C No. 2072 of 2014 and the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 impugned in Writ - C No. 43064 of 2018 shall be governed by the said decision. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment, with liberty to the petitioners to seek reconstitution of the dealership in accordance with law and the prevailing policy of the respondent-Corporation. (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) October 28, 2025 NLY