IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2239 of 2024 ========================================== DHARMASUT INDANE GAS AGENCY Versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ANR. ========================================== Appearance: MR SHALIN MEHTA SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) AND MS BHOOMI PATEL for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS NIKITA C GANDHI(11570) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NISARG DESAI WITH NANDITA SUROLLIA WITH YASH MODI FOR GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 12/03/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Indian Petroleum Act with the following prayers:- (a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding and declaring that the impugned order of termination dated 01.02.2024 passed by the respondent authorities is illegal, against the settled proposition of law and in violation of principles of natural justice and be further pleased to quash and set aside the same. (c) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, operation implementaion and operation of the p. 2 impugned order of termination dated 01.02.2024 passed by the respondent authorities. (d) Such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the petitioner. (e) The costs of this petition be provided to the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Nisarg Desai, learned counsel for Gandhi Law Associates for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel has submitted that respondent – authorities issued the notice dated 05.09.2025 incorporating the clause 5, clause 6 and clause 27(j) of the Distributorship Agreement dated 27.11.2025, for which the petitioner has given explanation on 19.09.2023 and again on 02.12.2023. He has submitted that on 08.01.2024, the respondent – authorities has issued notice for personal hearing and, thereafter, on 01.02.2024, the respondent – authorities passed an order and cancelled the Dealership / Distributorship Agreement. He has also submitted that while passing the order of cancellation of Distributorship Agreement, the respondent – authorities has gone beyond the scope of show- cause notice and considered other material as referred in the order more particularly clause No.16 and 27(n) which has not been mentioned in the show-cause notice and, therefore, it is clear that the respondent – authorities have acted in arbitral manner and against the settled principles of law and passed the order, which is not just and proper. p. 3 4. It appears that the respondent has filed the afÏdavit-in-reply against which afÏdavit-in-rejoinder is also filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions of the afÏdavit-in- reply and the afÏdavit-in-rejoinder and the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties, I am of the opinion that if the order is passed to cancel the Distributorship Agreement is in violation of the conditions stipulated in the Dealership / Distributorship Agreement then alternative remedy is provided in the said agreement. However, without entering into merits of the matter, I am of the opinion that let the petitioner may make fresh representation before the respondent/s clarifying that while issuing the show-cause notice and passing the order, the respondent has gone beyond the scope of the notice and considered some other material also. Therefore, let proper opportunity be given to the petitioner to explain this eventuality as cropped up in the order and after hearing the present petitioner, an appropriate order may be passed by the respondent – authorities. 5. The petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make fresh representation before the respondent – authorities within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order. On receipt of the representation, the respondent – authorities shall decide the same within a period of six weeks after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Direct service is permitted. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL