Date of reserved for orders Date of pronouncement Date of uploading APHC010003762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 389/2026 AND W.P.No. W.P. No.389 of 2026 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. ATAM GAS SERVICES, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS'LNDANE GAS DISTRIBUTOR, ROOM. N DEVUNIKADAPA ROAD, KADAPA. 2. SMT.HARMINDER KAUR GREWAL, W/ ABOUT 85 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S. ATAM GAS SERVICES, INDANE GAS DISTRIBUTOR, ROOM N COMPLEX, DEVUNIKADAPA ROAD, KADAPA. 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES, NEW DELHI 2. M/s.LNDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G YAVAR JUNG MARG, BADRA (EAST), MUMBAI 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.LNDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., TAPSO, HYDERABAD 4. THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, CORPORATION LTD., VIJAYAWADA IDO Date of reserved for orders : 10.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 18.09.2026 : 19.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO I.A. No.4 of 2026 IN/AND WRIT PETITION No. 389/2026 AND W.P.No.29102 of 2025 M/S. ATAM GAS SERVICES, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER LEVAKU BHARGAVI, W/o.LEVAKU VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS'LNDANE GAS DISTRIBUTOR, ROOM. No.2, MUNCIPAL COMPLEX, DEVUNIKADAPA ROAD, KADAPA. SMT.HARMINDER KAUR GREWAL, W/o.ATAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S. ATAM GAS SERVICES, DANE GAS DISTRIBUTOR, ROOM No.2, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, DEVUNIKADAPA ROAD, KADAPA. …Petitioner(s) AND UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES, NEW DELHI- 110001. OIL CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G YAVAR JUNG MARG, BADRA (EAST), MUMBAI-40051. THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.LNDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., TAPSO, HYDERABAD -500051. THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, M/S.LNDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., VIJAYAWADA IDO- 520003. [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO M/S. ATAM GAS SERVICES, REP. BY ITS POWER OF .LEVAKU VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS'LNDANE GAS .2, MUNCIPAL COMPLEX, .ATAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, PARTNER OF M/S. ATAM GAS SERVICES, .2, MUNICIPAL Petitioner(s) UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF 110001. OIL CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.LNDIAN OIL CORPORATION M/S.LNDIAN OIL 2 5. THE DIVISIONAL LPG SALES HEAD, M/S.LNDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., VIJAYAWADA IDO- 520003. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order a) Declaring the proceedings dated 22.12.2025 and proceedings dated 27.10.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and null and void as the same are issued in of violation. of Principles of natural justice, Art.14, 19(1) (g), 21 and 300A of the constitution of India. b) Consequently restore the petitioner Distributary Agency forthwith by setting aside the above said orders/proceedings dated 22.12.2025 and the proceedings/order dt. 27.10.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in the absence of show cause notice as the same are issued in violation of Principles of natural justice, Art.14, 19(1) (g), 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders. IA No. 4 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the proposed petitioner to come on record as writ petitioner No.3 being the legal representatives of deceased Writ Petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition No.389 of 2026 as well as in I.A.No. 1 of 2026 in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y V SRINIVASAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ASHOK RAM V 2. BACHINA HANUMANTHA RAO (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) W.P. No.29102 of 2025 BETWEEN: 1. ATAM GAS SERVICES, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER LEVAKU BHARGAVI W/O.LEVAKA VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS INDANE GAS DISTRIBUTOR, ROOM.No.2 MUNCIPAL COMPLEX DEVUNIKADAPA ROAD, KADAPA. 3 2. SMT.HARMINDER KAUR GREWAL, W/O.ATAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS PARTNER OF M/S. ATAM GAS SERVICES INDANE GAS DISTRIBUTOR, ROOM.NO.2 MUNCIPAL COMPLEX DEVUNIKADAPA ROAD, KADAPA ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES NEW DELHI. 2. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND AMP MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN OIL BHAVAN.G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARGBADRA (EAST), MUMBAI-40051 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD TAPSO, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VIJAYAWADA IDO 5. THE DIVISIONAL LPG SALES HEAD, M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VIJAYAWADA IDO-520003. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 5th respondent in issuing proceedings dated 27.09.2025, in unilaterally keeping the distributor ship operation on hold and further directing to hand over the equipment to another distributor is arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14,19(1 )(g) and 21 of Constitution and consequently direct the respondents to restore the operations of the petitioners and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ASHOK RAM V 2. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 4 COMMON ORDER: Since the issues involved in these two writ petitions are questioning cancellation of distributorship of gas agency are heard analogously and are decided by the common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P. No. 389 of 2026 are being taken for disposal of these two writ petitions. 2. The writ petition No.389 of 20206 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order to declare the proceedings dated 22.12.2025 and proceedings dated 27.10.2025, issued by the 3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and null and void, as the same are issued in violation of Principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19(1)g, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to restore the petitioner Distributary Agency forthwith by setting aside the above said orders/proceedings dated 22.12.2025 and the proceedings/order dated 27.10.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in the absence of show cause notice as the same are issued in violation of Principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19(1)g, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. And the writ petition No.29102 of 2025 is filed to declare the action of the respondents more particularly the 5th respondent in issuing proceedings dated 27.09.2025 in unilaterally keeping the distributorship operation on hold and further directing to hand over the equipment to 5 another distributor, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14. 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents to restore the operations of Atam Gas Agency. 4. The 2nd petitioner was allotted a Gas Agency at Cuddapah District by the Government in the war widow quota running under the name and style of M/s. Atam Gas Services, the proprietrix gas agency was converted into partnership business firm commencing from 17.02.2011. The situation that being so, the 5th respondent sent a E- mail dated 27.09.2025 inter alia indicating that the gas agency was put on hold and to handover the equipment to the nearby distributor and to take acknowledgement from both donor and recipient distributor. The said proceeding dated 27.09.2025 was impugned in W.P. No. 29102 of 2025 and a coordinate bench of this Court has granted “status quo’ vide order dated 23.12.2025. The proceeding dated 27.09.2025 was challenged on the ground that the 5th respondent failed to observe rule of audi alteram partem. 5. The 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on December 22, 2025, following proceedings dated 27.10.2025, stating that M/s Atam Gas Service was transferred to M/s.Khwaja Gas Service to prevent inconvenience to consumers. The notice indicated that an inquiry conducted clearly established that the distributorship operations were 6 financed and conducted by a third party, Mr. Kunala Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, which violated Distributorship Clause 23 (c) (i). This show cause notice is now being challenged in the current writ petition on the grounds that M/s. Atam Gas Service operates as a partnership, which was communicated to the respondents who subsequently ratified it. The petitioners allege that the respondents are pressuring the 2nd petitioner to transfer M/s. Atam Gas Agency to a third party due to political influences, and they note that there have been no consumer complaints against M/s. Atam Gas Agency. They request that the impugned show cause notice dated 22.12.2025, be set aside. 6. While the writ petition is pending, the 2nd petitioner passed away on 18.02.2026, in whose favor the license to operate M/s. Atam Gas Services was granted. The present writ petition was filed through the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, who is the 1st writ petitioner. The 1st petitioner, acting as GPA holder, filed I.A. No. 3 of 2026 to include the daughter of the 2nd writ petitioner as a legal heir under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. And another I.A. No. 4 of 2026 was filed by the daughter of 2nd writ petitioner to bring her on record as legal heir of the 2nd writ petitioner under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC. This request is based on the ground that as per the detailed guidelines for reconstitution of LPG distributorship 2022, as per the guideline 3.7, the firm can be 7 reconstituted with the legal heirs, and his or her family members, legal heir and outside partners. The daughter of the 2nd petitioner seeks permission to allow I.A. 4 of 2026, asserting that in the event of death of any party, the proceedings should continue after inclusion of the legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased. 8. The 5th respondent has filed the counter affidavit in the writ petitions denying all the contentions raised by the writ petitioners in the following: The distributorship is a personal, non-transferable, contract- based commercial arrangement governed by specific statutory and eligibility standards. While it cannot be inherited, transmitted, or continued through a legal representative nor operated by proxy, it was originally held by two partners, Harminder Kaur Grewal and Ms. P.Preethi. The distributorship has ceased to have any lawful partner capable of operating it due to Ms. Preethi’s resignation as a Government Employee, appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon, and on the death of the other partner, a legal representative of a deceased partner does not automatically acquire rights to the distributorship and cannot be substituted in this role. According to Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, upon the death of a partner, and unless stated otherwise in the agreement, there is no automatic continuation granted to heirs. The reconstitution of a distributorship following a partner's 8 death is not a matter of right but is strictly governed by the Reconstitution Policy 2022, which requires the surviving partner to meet specific eligibility criteria and obtain prior approval from the corporation. Operating the distributorship as a benami transaction constitutes a serious violation of the distributorship agreement, thus serving as grounds for initiating disciplinary proceedings and issuing the Show Cause notice dated 22.12.2025, under Clause 27(a) of the agreement. And it is and it is not out of place that such an act would place a judicial imprimatur upon the very illegality that the Corporation is statutorily bound to act against. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may dismiss I.A. No. 3 of 2026 and consequently to dismiss the writ petition as well. 9. The 5th respondent also filed counter to the I.A. No. 3 of 2026 asserting that the unregistered General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder cannot file an application to bring on record following the death of the principal and it is the settled law that upon the principal's death, the GPA executed in favour of the agent would become inoperative and is null and void and the GPA clearly states that the principal has given the authority that it was restricted to sign, verify and file suits, appeals, revisions or any other proceedings” as the need may arise in the course of proceedings. Therefore, the 1st petitioner unregistered GPA holder being the agent of Smt. Harminder Kaur Grewal is seized to file an 9 application to bring the legal heirs and it opposed the application and referenced to Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act. Thus, it is claimed that there are no bonafide grounds for invoking Order XXII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. 10. The 5th respondent orally adopted the counter that filed in I.A. No. 3 of 2026 to the I.A. No. 4 of 2026 and it is argued that the daughter of the 2nd writ petitioner must file a separate application. She cannot file an application within a writ petition initiated through an unregistered power of attorney (GPA), as her claim constitutes a separate cause of action, no automatic continuation enures in favour of the heirs reconstitution of a distributorship following the death or exist if a partner is not a matter of right but is governed strictly by the reconstitution Policy 2022 and it is contingent upon the surviving person independently satisfying the eligibility criteria and obtaining the prior approval the corporation. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, pursuant to Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agency terminates upon the death of either the principal or the agent. Consequently, the 1st petitioner, acting as the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, lacks the authority to file an application to substitute the legal heirs of the 2nd petitioner following her death. On this basis, it is argued that I.A. No. 3 of 2023 should be dismissed on 10 the death of the 2nd writ petitioner, therefore, contends that the I.A. No. 3 of 2023, is liable to be dismissed. 12. A reading of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act makes it clear that on the death of an agent the agency comes to an end but does not obliterate the acts done by the agent on behalf of the Principal hence the GPA cannot act on the death of the principal. However, the GPA holder cannot continue to act after the death of the principal. As the agency terminates upon the principal’s death, the writ petition filed by the GPA holder abates upon the death of the 2nd petitioner. 13. Therefore, the I.A. No. 3 of 2026 that filed under Order 22 Rule 3 by the 1st petitioner GPA holder to bring the legal heir of the deceased 2nd writ petitioner, is not maintainable and the said application, is accordingly dismissed. 14. The guideline no. 3.7 enures or enable for the conditions for reconstituting an LPG distributorship in 2022. It is gainful to extract the relevant portion of the guideline: In case of demise or incapacitation of the sole proprietor resulting in total and permanent disability if there is no nominee or persons nominated expressed unwillingness to be inducted as proprietor/partner or is found ineligible as per norms applicable for Distributor Selection other age, education qualification and multiple distributorship norms, the firm can be reconstituted with 11 legal heirs(s); legal heir(s) and family of self / spouse viz., step children: son-in-law; daughter-in-law parents (including step fairly/step mother; Brother/Sister (including step brother and step sister) grand-parents (both maternal and paternal); grand-children of the deceased proprietor.’ 15. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, the aforesaid guideline has not been disputed; it is only stated that it is not a matter of right. The guideline enables the legal heir of the licensee to reconstitute the distributorship following the death of the original licensee. Therefore, the daughter of the deceased can maintain the interlocutory application for the distributorship of the gas agency 16. Order XXX speaks about : Suits by or against Firms and Persons carrying on business in names other than their own : rule 4 (2) provides that : 4. Rights of suit on death of partner. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 45 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 where two or more persons may sue or be sued in the name of a firm under the foregoing provisions and any of such persons dies, whether before the institution or during the pendency of any suit, it shall not be necessary to join the legal representative of the deceased as a party to the suit. (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall limit or otherwise effect any right which the legal representative of the deceased may have- (a) to apply to be made a party to the suit, or 12 (b) to enforce any claim against the survivor or survivors. 17. Rule 4 (2) of CPC enable the legal heir of the deceased to apply to be made as a party to the suit. To argue that this is not a suit where they can come on record it amounts absurd argument. The purport of this rule is to enable the legal heir of the deceased to be made as party to the proceedings. 18. It is also necessary to bear in mind, as observed by the Apex Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal1, held that "our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their back, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and they should not be precluded from participating in them." It is also further observed by the Supreme Court in the said decision that "our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle.” 19. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4 of 2026 in W.P. No.389 of 2026 is allowed and the daughter of the deceased Harminder Kaur Grewal, the daughter of the deceased licensee of M/s. Atam Gas Services, is permitted to come on record as a legal heir of the deceased 2nd writ 1 (1955) 1 SCC 323 13 petitioner. And legal heir is at liberty to file separate application seeking to allot M/s. Atam Gas Services duly following the guidelines for reconstitution of LPG distributorship 2022 to the respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon filing of such an application, the respondents are directed to consider it in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines, for the reconstitution of LPG distributorship 2022 and the law. Until such time, the respondents are directed not to allot M/s. Atam Gas Services, to any new agency. 20. In view of the order passed in W.P. No. 389 of 2026, no orders are required to be defined in W.P. No. 29102 of 2025. 21. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 18.09.2026 Harin 14 38 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.Nos. 389 of 2026 and 29102 OF 2025 Date: 18-09-2026 Harin