HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 259 of 2025 M/s Trilok Singh & Co, Beriparao, Haldwani, District Nainital ….....Petitioner Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Rawat, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a partnership firm, who entered into a dispensing pump and selling license agreement with respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. According to the petitioner, based on a communication made by the respondent no.3, the respondnet nos. 1 & 2 stopped supply of fuel to the petrol pump station of the petitioner. This action of the respondent nos. 1 & 2, according to the petitioner is arbitrary and whimsical against the principles of natural justice violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner directed under the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner challenges the communication of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 dated 03.02.2025, which inter alia, records as follows:- 2 “View above, you are hereby advised to EITHER resume the RO operations with immediate effect (not later than 10.02.2025) OR opt for the “Holiday” Scheme, where in an ad-hoc dealer would be appointed for a period of two years. In case if the sales are not resumed or the option of “Holiday” scheme is not availed by you, we shall be constrained to put the RO on “Holiday” scheme. Please note that this is an interim measure aimed at ensuring the continuity of sales and operations at the outlet.” The petitioner also seeks direction that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 may be directed to supply the fuel at the filling station of the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a partnership firm of which the respondent no.3 is a partner only in papers. He has nothing to do with the day-to-day business of the filling station. He would submit that the respondent no.3 had sold the land to the father of the Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, one of the partners of the petitioner firm. The respondent no.3 had also given a NOC that if Kamlesh Kumar Sharma runs the filling station, he would have no objection to it. Now it is submitted that the respondent no.3 raised certain issues to the respondent nos. 1 & 2 requesting them not to supply the fuel to the 3 petitioner’s filling station. Thereafter, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has given the impugned communication. 6. Essentially, the dispute in the instant matter is a commercial dispute. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent nos. 1 & 2 by which the respondents nos. 1 & 2 was to supply Public Motor Spirit or HSD and other petroleum products to the petitioner. Now the supply of fuel has been stopped by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and they had issued the impugned communication. It means that there is a dispute between the parties to an agreement. Clause 19 (a) of the agreement makes the provision of arbitration in case of any dispute between the parties. 7. It is a commercial dispute that has been raised by the petitioner in the instant petition. The dispute is with regard to non supply of petroleum products to the filling station of the petitioner by the respondent nos. 1 & 2. There is an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 & 2. In that respect, it contains the arbitration clause. Therefore, the petitioner may very well seek remedy under the agreement. The writ petition may not be entertained for that purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 4 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 20.02.2025 Jitendra