1 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 2025:CGHC:39558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1276 of 2016 Ajay Agrawal S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years Proprietor M/s Chhattisgarh, Indane, Ward No. 8, Beside Trimurty Cinema, Station Road, Champa R/o Tahsil Road, Jagdalla District Janjgir Chmapa Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --Petitioner versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thorugh Its Chairman Regd. Office Indian Oil Bhavan, G 9, Ali Yavar Jung, Marg, Bandra East Mumbai,, Maharashtra 2 - Deputy General Manager, L.P.G. Madhya Pradesh State Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, 16 Arora Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal, M.P., District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 3 - Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Coropration Ltd. V.I.P. Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) AND WPC No. 1066 of 2018 Ajay Agrawal S/o. Late Laxminarayan Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o. Korwapara Station Road, Behind Trimurty Cinema, P.S. Champa, Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its General Manager Indian Oil Bhawan, Jail Road, Area Hills, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh), District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Area Office- Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas, A- Wing, Shashtri Rajendra Prasad Road, Ip Estate, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 4 - Collector, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Vishal Kedia, R/o. P.O. Champa, Near Railway Station, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4965671, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shatrughan Sahu R/o. Post Nariyara, Tehsil Akaltara, P.S. Pamgarh, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma and Mr. Akash Agrawal, Advocates For State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL For IOCL : Mr. Anand Shukla & Mr. N.Naha Roy, Advocates For Respondent No.5. in WPC No. 1066/2018 : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 3 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 07/08/2025 1. Since, both the petitions filed by the same petitioner and involve similar facts and grounds, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. In WPC No. 1276/2016, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “10.1) That the record pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the custody of the respondents may kindly be called for kind perusal of Court. 10.2) That order dated 17.03.2016 and 18.04.2016, rejecting the application for restoration of LPG Distributorship to the petitioner at Janjgir Champa area cannot be setaside /quash and respondents may be directed to restore the distributorship to the petitioner under same terms and conditions 10.3) That till the final decision of the application for reconsidering filed by the petitioner, further the respondents be directed to restrain from making allotment of the distributorship to third person. 10.4) That the petitioner may be awarded compensation for illegal termination and business loss to petitioner and also loss of reputation totaling to a tune of Rs.50 Lacs only and interest upon it from the date of termination till date of payment. 10.5) Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. In WPC No. 1056/2018, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- 4 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the allotment order letter dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) or any subsequent order issued by the respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 for grant of allotment and operations, to the extent it relates to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 4. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the distributorship of Indian (LPG), Janjgir-Champa area was initially given in favour of the father of the petitioner under the Freedom Fighter Quota. Subsequently, after his death, the authorities of the IOCL entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 08/07/2002. (b) According to the petitioner, on 04/02/2010, the Assistant Manager (LPG Sales) visited the premises of the petitioner for an inspection, which was duly cooperated by the petitioner by providing relevant records. During the inspection process, several customers gathered and raised complaint regarding the delivery of cylinders. At that time, the Officer came to know about the same and on enquiry from the petitioner, some hot talks took place between them. Thereafter, the said Officer reported the matter to the higher Authority. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which was duly replied by him. However, without considering the response submitted by the 5 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 petitioner, by order dated 16/06/2010, the Distribution ship of the petitioner has been terminated alleging violation Clause-24 of the Distributorship agreement. (c) Learned counsel would submit that the said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before this Court bearing WPC No. 2854/2010, which was dismissed by order dated 25/11/2013 observing that the petitioner without availing the arbitration clause 37 (a) of the agreement has approached this Court, however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator as per the aforesaid provisions. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Arbitrator, who vide award dated 17/11/2015, though held that termination of Distributorship agreement is bad in law but as per the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. Amritsar Gas Service And Ors., 1991 (1) SCC 533, the restoration of Distributorship is not provided in the agreement, the respondent was directed to review the order of termination of Distributorship. (d) Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation before the authorities for review of its decision, but the IOCL declined to revive the termination order and communicated the same to the petitioner by order dated 17/03/2016 by reiterating reasons of violation of Clause-24 of the agreement. The further representation has also been declined by order dated 18/04/2016. Both the said orders are under challenge in WPC No. 1276/2016. In the meanwhile, the respondent Authorities proceeded to allot the Distributorship to another agency and for which 6 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 an advertisement has been floated. In the meantime, the petitioner approached the District Judge, Janjgir-Champa for execution of the award passed by the Arbitrator. However, the same has been withdrawn by the petitioner on 04/05/2016 with liberty to file a Writ Petition. Thus, this petition. (e) The petitioner preferred WPC No. 1056/2018 assailing the order dated 15/03/2017 by which the LPG Distributorship at Champa has been allotted to the respondent No.5/Vishal Kedia. In this case, the contention of the petitioner is that though the advertisement issued in the year 2011, however, after lapse of five years, the first draw of the location was conducted in the year 2016. Thereafter, without verifying the factual situation in an illegal and arbitrary manner, the Distributorship has been awarded in favour of respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.5 has his LPG Godown at Champa over the land bearing Khasara No. 1418/2 area 0.158 Hectare and the same is having no direct access to the public road, despite the said fact, the Distributorship has been awarded in his favour. 5. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the IOCL, per contra, would submit that when on 04/02/2010, the Assistant Manager of the IOCL went to visit the premises of the petitioner for inspection, proper cooperation has not been extended to him and no record was also not provided to him, and even the petitioner abused and slapped the said officer and as such, the said act of the petitioner is absolutely not justifiable. Thus, he has committed the gross violation of the provisions 7 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 of the clause-24 of the Indane (LPG) Distributorship (Domestic & Commercial) agreement dated 08/07/2002. (ii) Learned counsel would further submit that pursuant to the show- cause notice, the petitioner has failed to submit proper response except to say that it was an unfortunate incident. Even, during personal discussion with the higher officials, the petitioner did not denying the fact regarding slapping the officer of IOCL. (iii) Learned counsel would submit that, in fact, the sole arbitrator has rightly passed the award observing that he has no right to restore the dealership in view of decision rendered by the Supreme Court Indian Oil Corporation (Supra), and hence, directed the petitioner to approach the IOCL to review the termination order. The IOCL after considering all the aspect of the matter declined to revive the termination of dealership. He would submit that had it been the petitioner is aggrieved by the Arbitral award, he ought to have availed the remedy as may be available to him under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, within the stipulated time period, but he has chosen not to challenge the same, whereas, he himself filed an application for execution of the same before the District Judge and subsequently, withdrew the same. Thus, it is crystal clear that the award passed by the sole arbitrator has attained its finality. (iv) As far as, the petition filed by the petitioner, bearing WPC No. 1056/2018 with regard to allotment of dealership to respondent No. 5/Vishal Kedia is concerned, since, the dealership of the petitioner has 8 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 already been terminated after following the due process of law, he has no locus to challenge the subsequent allotment order. Thus, both the petitions may be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as documents. 7. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions of Clause-24 of the Indane (LPG) Distributorship (Domestic & Commercial) agreement dated 08/07/2002 as also sub- clause 4.1 & 4.1.1 of the Clause 4.0 i.e. Guidelines for Revival prescribed in the Policy circular No. SL/1601/2007 of the IOCL read as under:- Indane (LPG) Distributorship (Domestic & Commercial) agreement dated 08/07/2002 : “24. Corporation by its officers, representatives or servants shall have at all times and in any circumstances free and unrestricted access to all premises used in connections with the business of the Distributor and to inspect and take account of all products in his possession and of all implements, tools, furniture, fittings and/or other property entrusted to the Distributor by the Corporation. Policy circular No. SL/1601/2007 of the IOCL 4.0 GUIDELINES FOR REVIVAL: 4.1 Revival of distributorship shall not be allowed in the following cases: 4.1.1 Distributorships terminated on account of malpractices/irregularities/ breach of Distributorship Agreement/Violation of MDG. This will not however come in the way of consideration of decision on appeals, which may be made” 9 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 8. On bare perusal of the entire pleading and document, it appears that when on 04/02/2010, the official of the IOCL visited the premises of the petitioner, some hot talks took place between them and for which, a meeting was arranged by the higher official and after considering the entire case, the Authorities issued the show-cause notice to which, the petitioner submitted his reply. On being not satisfied with the same, the dealership has been terminated vide order dated 16/06/2010 alleging violation of Clause-24 of the agreement. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner raised a claim before the sole Arbitrator, who by its award the directed the petitioner to approach the IOCL for review of the termination order, however, the Authorities on due consideration, declined to revive the dealership of the petitioner. 9. While declining to revive the distributorship of the petitioner, the respondent IOCL considered sub-clause 4.1 and 4.1.1 of clause 4.0 of policy circular No.SL/1601/2007 of the IOCL, which provides for guidelines for revival. The same prescribes that revival of distributorship shall not be allowed if the distributorship terminated on account of malpractices/irregularities/ breach of Distributorship Agreement/ Violation of MDG. In the case at hand, there is an allegation against the petitioner/distributor to the effect that while the officer of the IOCL visited the premises of the petitioner for inspection, proper cooperation has not been extended to him and also abused and slapped him. 10 WPC No.1276 of 2016 & WPC No.1066 of 2018 10. After declining to revive the termination order of distributorship passed against the petitioner, fresh advertisement has also been issued for allotment of the Dealership. In the meantime, the petitioner approached the District Judge by filing the execution of arbitral award, however, he himself withdrew the same on 04/05/2016 on the ground, he wish to avail the remedy available under the writ jurisdiction. In fact, the petitioner has never challenged the arbitral award before any forum and as such, the same has attained finality. 11. In view of foregoing, at this stage, that too, even after a lapse of about a decade from the date of arbitral award, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner in WPC No. 1276/2016, as the arbitral award has not been challenged in any higher forum and the same attained finality. 12. Since, no relief granted in WPC No. 1276/2016 as after considering sub- clause 4.1 and 4.1.1 of clause 4.0 of policy circular No.SL/1601/2007 of the IOCL, the authorities of IOCL rightly declined to revive the termination order of distributorship passed against the petitioner, the subsequent writ petition, i.e. WPC No. 1056/2018, wherein, the petitioner is seeking quashment of allotment order dated 15/03/2017 issued in favour of respondent No.5/Vishal Kedia, is not tenable on the ground that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the same. 13. As an upshot, both the writ petitions are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.08.12 17:19:41 +0530