M/S Rishika Indane Gas Agency vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. The writ petition is up for hearing and disposal. It was moved on 10th September, 2025, when Mr. Yash Padia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner had submitted his client is distributor for the oil company under agreement dated 28th June, 2018. The distributorship is by a sole proprietorship. Prior to obtaining the distributorship his client entered into a partnership with private respondent no.4. His client has challenged suspension order dated 25th August, 2025, suspending his client’s distributorship up to 15th November, 2025 for purpose of withdrawing the distributorship. He had submitted further, impugned suspension order does not speak of single instance to show running of the distributorship was by any other than his client.

2. Mr. Devi Shanker Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 (the oil company). On 10th September, 2025 he had relied on clause 23(c)(i) in agreement dated 28th June, 2018 (between petitioner and the oil company) to submit, said provision is basis for the suspension. Clause 23(c)(i) is reproduced below. “ 23(c) Except with the previous written consent of the Corporation-- (i) the Distributor shall not enter into any agreement, contract or understanding whereby the operations of the Distributor controlled/carried out and /or finances by any other hereunder or may 2 WRIC No. 31381 of 2025 person firm or Company, whether directly or indirectly and whole or in part;” Private respondent no.4 is said to be partner of petitioner. We did not and do not deem it necessary to direct issuance of notice on said respondent.

3. Paragraphs 3 and 4 from order dated 10th September, 2025 are reproduced below. “3. It appears from impugned suspension order itself, the oil company is aware that a registered partnership dated 8th March, 2018 was executed. It alleges, it was done without approval of the oil company. It further appears, show cause notice was issued and reply tendered by petitioner.

4. The commencement of the dealership by said agreement dated 28th June, 2018 is not under dispute. The partnership deed was executed prior thereto. The oil company has adjournment since, as aforesaid there is no allegation/statement in impugned suspension order that the partnership is involved in running the dealership. Even though impugned order cannot be the oil company per improved subsequently by declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, adjournment is granted to it for demonstrating petitioner was running the dealership through the partnership. At this stage we do not deem it necessary to direct issuance of notice on private respondent no.4.”

4. Today Mr. Shukla submits, case of his client in defending the suspension order stands disclosed in the writ petition itself. Apart from clause 23(c)(i), he relies on copy of plaint in Suit no.333 of 2025 filed in the Court of Chandauli by petitioner on 22nd July, 2025. He draws attention to paragraph 15, reproduced below. “ यह के वाद का कारण तब उत्पन्न हुआ, जब ्ऺितवादी भागीदारी िवलेख िदनांक 08.06.2018 को वािदनी के कहने के बावजूद िनरस्त नहीं कराया और वािदनी ने िदनांक 30.05.2025 को एक नोिटस रिजस्टडर् डाक से ्ऺितवादी को ्ऺेिषत िकया िक वह भागीदारी िवलेख 15 िदनों के अंदर िनरस्त करा देवे इसके बावजूद ्ऺितवादी ने भागीदारी िवलेख िनरस्त नहीं कराया ।" He submits, it is a collusive suit between petitioner and private respondent no.4 to deceive his client. Consequence will be claim of his client against 3 WRIC No. 31381 of 2025 petitioner, as distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) will be resisted on specious plea of recalcitrant partner. To avoid such exposure, the suspension order was duly issued so that his client can withdraw and terminate the distributorship.

5. Mr. Shukla reiterates, petitioner had earlier entered into partnership, suppressed, whereby the distributorship is being controlled/carried out and/ or finances by the partner of petitioner used indirectly, in whole or in part.

6. Mr. Padia in reply submits, in spite of opportunity granted the oil company has not been able to demonstrate, the distributorship is being controlled indirectly, in part or whole by either the partnership or private respondent no.4.

7. Petitioner, as distributor of the oil company is presumed to derive income in acting as such. Hence, impugned suspension order interferes with petitioner’s engagement as distributor. It follows, there must be good reason for suspending the distributorship, for purpose of the oil company withdrawing from and terminating it. On query we are told that the oil company received complaint that petitioner was running distributorship through partnership with private respondent no.4. It was, therefore, necessary for the oil company to discover, for demonstration before us, tangible evidence/fact for us to sustain the suspension order, in face of petitioner’s challenge to it as made without basis. The suspension order does not talk about the suspension of distributorship for termination on the ground of suppression. The allegation in the show cause notice was, the agreement was entered into without prior approval of the oil company. On the other hand, concern of the oil company of claims it may have against petitioner as distributor, being obstructed at a later date on setting up the partnership and its position that the suit filed is collusive, cannot be swept under the carpet.

8. We, in facts and circumstances above, on omission of the oil company to demonstrate running of the distributorship by the partnership or on funds injected by private respondent no.4, set aside the suspension order. We hasten to add, petitioner will be bound by position taken in this writ 4 WRIC No. 31381 of 2025 petition that she is herself running the distributorship, without any involvement of respondent no.4. Hence, private respondent no.4 cannot have any claim over the distributorship, either already accrued, at present or in future, till the distributorship is in place. The oil company is at liberty to apply for intervention in the suit for purpose of producing this order before the civil Court.

9. The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) September 17, 2025 Shivangi SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. The writ petition is up for hearing and disposal. It was moved on 10th September, 2025, when Mr. Yash Padia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner had submitted his client is distributor for the oil company under agreement dated 28th June, 2018. The distributorship is by a sole proprietorship. Prior to obtaining the distributorship his client entered into a partnership with private respondent no.4. His client has challenged suspension order dated 25th August, 2025, suspending his client’s distributorship up to 15th November, 2025 for purpose of withdrawing the distributorship. He had submitted further, impugned suspension order does not speak of single instance to show running of the distributorship was by any other than his client.

2. Mr. Devi Shanker Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 (the oil company). On 10th September, 2025 he had relied on clause 23(c)(i) in agreement dated 28th June, 2018 (between petitioner and the oil company) to submit, said provision is basis for the suspension. Clause 23(c)(i) is reproduced below. “ 23(c) Except with the previous written consent of the Corporation-- (i) the Distributor shall not enter into any agreement, contract or understanding whereby the operations of the Distributor controlled/carried out and /or finances by any other hereunder or may 2 WRIC No. 31381 of 2025 person firm or Company, whether directly or indirectly and whole or in part;” Private respondent no.4 is said to be partner of petitioner. We did not and do not deem it necessary to direct issuance of notice on said respondent.

3. Paragraphs 3 and 4 from order dated 10th September, 2025 are reproduced below. “3. It appears from impugned suspension order itself, the oil company is aware that a registered partnership dated 8th March, 2018 was executed. It alleges, it was done without approval of the oil company. It further appears, show cause notice was issued and reply tendered by petitioner.

4. The commencement of the dealership by said agreement dated 28th June, 2018 is not under dispute. The partnership deed was executed prior thereto. The oil company has adjournment since, as aforesaid there is no allegation/statement in impugned suspension order that the partnership is involved in running the dealership. Even though impugned order cannot be the oil company per improved subsequently by declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, adjournment is granted to it for demonstrating petitioner was running the dealership through the partnership. At this stage we do not deem it necessary to direct issuance of notice on private respondent no.4.”

4. Today Mr. Shukla submits, case of his client in defending the suspension order stands disclosed in the writ petition itself. Apart from clause 23(c)(i), he relies on copy of plaint in Suit no.333 of 2025 filed in the Court of Chandauli by petitioner on 22nd July, 2025. He draws attention to paragraph 15, reproduced below. “ यह के वाद का कारण तब उत्पन्न हुआ, जब ्ऺितवादी भागीदारी िवलेख िदनांक 08.06.2018 को वािदनी के कहने के बावजूद िनरस्त नहीं कराया और वािदनी ने िदनांक 30.05.2025 को एक नोिटस रिजस्टडर् डाक से ्ऺितवादी को ्ऺेिषत िकया िक वह भागीदारी िवलेख 15 िदनों के अंदर िनरस्त करा देवे इसके बावजूद ्ऺितवादी ने भागीदारी िवलेख िनरस्त नहीं कराया ।" He submits, it is a collusive suit between petitioner and private respondent no.4 to deceive his client. Consequence will be claim of his client against 3 WRIC No. 31381 of 2025 petitioner, as distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) will be resisted on specious plea of recalcitrant partner. To avoid such exposure, the suspension order was duly issued so that his client can withdraw and terminate the distributorship.

5. Mr. Shukla reiterates, petitioner had earlier entered into partnership, suppressed, whereby the distributorship is being controlled/carried out and/ or finances by the partner of petitioner used indirectly, in whole or in part.

6. Mr. Padia in reply submits, in spite of opportunity granted the oil company has not been able to demonstrate, the distributorship is being controlled indirectly, in part or whole by either the partnership or private respondent no.4.

7. Petitioner, as distributor of the oil company is presumed to derive income in acting as such. Hence, impugned suspension order interferes with petitioner’s engagement as distributor. It follows, there must be good reason for suspending the distributorship, for purpose of the oil company withdrawing from and terminating it. On query we are told that the oil company received complaint that petitioner was running distributorship through partnership with private respondent no.4. It was, therefore, necessary for the oil company to discover, for demonstration before us, tangible evidence/fact for us to sustain the suspension order, in face of petitioner’s challenge to it as made without basis. The suspension order does not talk about the suspension of distributorship for termination on the ground of suppression. The allegation in the show cause notice was, the agreement was entered into without prior approval of the oil company. On the other hand, concern of the oil company of claims it may have against petitioner as distributor, being obstructed at a later date on setting up the partnership and its position that the suit filed is collusive, cannot be swept under the carpet.

8. We, in facts and circumstances above, on omission of the oil company to demonstrate running of the distributorship by the partnership or on funds injected by private respondent no.4, set aside the suspension order. We hasten to add, petitioner will be bound by position taken in this writ 4 WRIC No. 31381 of 2025 petition that she is herself running the distributorship, without any involvement of respondent no.4. Hence, private respondent no.4 cannot have any claim over the distributorship, either already accrued, at present or in future, till the distributorship is in place. The oil company is at liberty to apply for intervention in the suit for purpose of producing this order before the civil Court.

9. The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) September 17, 2025 Shivangi SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad