Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010139922023 2025:GAU-AS:5983 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3814/2023 AFRUJ ZAMAN AND ANR. S/O- MD. SAHDULLAH, R/O- VILL- 1 NO. FESUWAL, P.O. BARUAHGAON, P.S. GHILADHARI DIST.- GOLAGHAT, PIN- 785603, ASSAM 2: ABDUL MALIK S/O- TOYAB ALI R/O- VILL- CHOLLANG PATHAR (B) P.O. CHOLLANG PATHAR P.S. MERAPANI DIST.- GOLAGHAT PIN- 785705 ASSA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, A-WING 2ND FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001 2:BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAWAN 4 AND 5 CURRIMBHOY ROAD BALLARD ESTAE P.B. NO. 688 MUMBAI- 400001 3:THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED 1ST FLOOR NEXIA PARK GMC HOSTEL ROAD NEXT TO NEF LAW COLLEGE Page No.# 2/3 ANAND NAGAR CHRISTIAN BASTI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) GUWHAATI- 781005 ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS) GOLAGHAT PIN- 785621 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEKA, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, FOR CAVEATOR,MR. S S ROY,DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 14.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The Retail Outlet of the petitioner, for which an agreement dated 07.03.2020 was entered into, was cancelled by an order dated 26.05.2023. The said action is challenged on different grounds in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner has also filed the connected Interlocutory Application being IA(Civil)/2266/2023, amongst other raising a contention that as per policy Guidelines For Re-constitution of Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO Dealerships, new partners can be inducted and already inducted partners without permission of the employer Oil Corporation, can be regularized. Accordingly, the petitioner had already filed representation before the authorities on 14.07.2023 for re- consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of such policy inasmuch as the basic ground for termination was induction of Sub- agent. Page No.# 3/3 4. Accordingly, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at this stage, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.07.2023 in terms of extant policy. 5. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner has inducted the sub agent without permission of the authority and therefore, his case may not be covered by the policy guideline inasmuch as such policy guideline is for pending cases and not for already terminated one. 6. Be that as it may, as a limited prayer is made that the representation of the petitioner is required to be considered by the authority i.e. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, this Court is also of the view that at least the petitioner shall have a right of consideration of such representation. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Guwahati, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.07.2023 in terms of the policy applicable to the case of the petitioner and pass a speaking order. 8. Such exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioner before the concerned authority. 9. This writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant