M/S Daljeet Filling Station vs Gen. Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd And Ors

RA-CW-42
CWP-1084
26-2017 in/and
-1-
4-2013 (O&M)


IN
N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN
NJAB AND HARYANA
GARH
AT CHANDIG




RA-CW-426-2017 in/and
CWP-1084-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.09.2026
6

M/s Dalje

eet Filling Station
….Petitioner
Versus

Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corp
General M


CORAM:

Present:








KULDEE

poration Ltd., and others

….Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KU

Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sen
Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
ULDEEP TIWARI
nior Advocate, with

Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocat
for the respondents.
te,

EP TIWARI , J. (Oral)

1)
By filing the instant writ pet
tition, under Articles 226/227 of
f
the Const
itution of India, the petitioner as
ssails the order dated 28.03.2012
2
(Annexur
re P-9), vide which, its dealers
ship agreement was terminated,
,
and also t
the order dated 06.12.2012 (Ann
nexure P-14), whereby, even the
e
statutory a
appeal preferred against the abov
vesaid order was dismissed.
2)
In an endeavour to question
n the validity of the abovesaid
d
orders, lea
arned Senior counsel for the peti
itioner has summed up the entire
e
case on tw
win grounds:
i) Since the impugned
d termination order was passed
d
wit
thout approval of the Director
r (Marketing) Headquarters, a
a
vio
lation of clause 8.8 of the Mar
rketing Discipline Guidelines is
s
wri
it large; and
ii) Before passing the
impugned termination order, no
o
opp
portunity of hearing to the au
uthorized representative of the
e
peti
itioner was afforded, in terms o
of clause 8.6 of the Guidelines.
.
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.08 17:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RA-CW-42
CWP-1084
26-2017 in/and
-2-
4-2013 (O&M)



3)
Elaborating the first ground
d, learned Senior counsel draws
s
attention
of the Court towards the order
r dated 28.03.2012, which was
s
passed by
y the Territory Manager (Retail)
, Jammu. Likewise, he referred
d
to an int
erim order passed by a Coord
dinate Bench of this Court on
n
03.07.201
15, vide which, learned counsel f
for the respondents was directed
d
to produc
e relevant records with respect t
to the approval of the competent
t
authority:
-
“Counsel for t
the respondents is directed to
o
produce the records
showing the approval of the
e
competent authority in
n pursuance to the guidelines of
f
the respondents of
the termination order dated
d
28.03.2012 (Annexure
P-9).”

4)
He, however, submits that
after passing of the abovesaid
d
order, the
e respondent-Corporation, with
h a view to justify its action,
,
indulged i
in fabrication of records, and pr
roduced a file noting of Director
r
(Marketin
ng), Headquarter, dated 06.03.20
012. Similarly, he referred to the
e
order pas
ssed by the Appellate Authori
ty, to submit that, though the
e
factual ba
ackdrop of the matter was hig
ghlighted therein, nothing was
s
mentioned
d with respect to the approva
al by the Director (Marketing)
)
Headquar
rter.
5)
Moving to the next limb of t
the arguments, it is asserted that
t
no opport
tunity of personal hearing was af
fforded to be petitioner, through
h
its author
ized representative, which can b
be evident from a perusal of the
e
order date
ed 28.03.2012. He submits tha
at though, the order recites that
t
reply filed
d by the petitioner was duly cons
sidered, no finding was recorded
d
as regards
s opportunity of personal hearing
g to the petitioner. At this stage,
,
he supple
ements the submissions with a
plea that even the show cause
e
notice wa
as defective, being served beyo
ond the statutory period of 30
0
days.
6)
Per contra , learned couns
el for the respondents, while
e
strenuous
ly defending the impugned orde
ers, submits that the Corporation
n
did not in
ndulge in any kind of fabricati
ion. He has also produced the
e
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.08 17:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RA-CW-42
CWP-1084
26-2017 in/and
-3-
4-2013 (O&M)


record of
f the Corporation, which als
so contains file noting dated
d
06.03.201
12, reflecting the approval of
f Director (Marketing), to the
e
decision o
of termination of dealership agr
reement. He contends that only
y
after due
approval of the Director (Mark
keting), the impugned order was
s
issued by
y the competent authority, i.e. T
erritory Manager (Retail). Had
d
there bee
n the case of fabrication, the p
petitioner would have certainly
y
raised su
uch an issue before the Appel
llate Authority, besides taking
g
specific p
pleadings, in this regard, in the i
instant writ petition. Therefore,
,
the plea o
of fabrication is an afterthought,
and is liable to be rejected out-
-
rightly.
7)
He further submits that it
t is not discernible from the
e
impugned
d order that any opportunity o
of hearing was granted to the
e
petitioner
r, but it is equally true that a sho
ow cause notice was issued to it,
,
and reply
y submitted thereto was duly
considered by the authorities.
.
Therefore
e, compliance to clause 8.6 of th
he Guidelines was meticulously
y
made. Fur
rther, having availed the remedy
y of statutory appeal against the
e
impugned
d order of termination, where
ein, it was afforded adequate
e
opportuni
ity of hearing, the petitioner can
nnot be permitted to rake up the
e
plea of
violation of principles of n
natural justice, at this stage.
.
Furthermo
ore, given the categoric admissi
ion on the part of the petitioner
r
with resp
pect to the alleged irregularit
ties, therefore, opportunity of
f
personal
hearing was no more than a
mere formality. In any case,
,
violation
of principles of natural justice
would not, ipso facto, set right
t
the irregu
ularities committed by the petition
ner.
8)
So far as the issue of delay in
n serving the show cause notice,
,
as sought
t be raised on behalf of the petit
tioner, is concerned, he submits
s
that the t
ime-line, in this regard, is mer
rely directory in nature and not
t
mandatory
y.
9)
This Court has heard learned
d counsel for the parties, and has
s
also perus
sed the record.
10)
Since the principal conten
ntion raised on behalf of the
e
petitioner
r is founded upon violation of c
clause 8.8 of the Guidelines, it
t
would be
expedient to refer the same:-

AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.08 17:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RA-CW-42
CWP-1084
26-2017 in/and
-4-
4-2013 (O&M)



“8.8. Authority to tak
ke action:
i) The action of te
ermination and all other critical
l
irregularities will be a
approved by Regional head/State
e
head/Zonal head of
f the concerned oil company
y
(General Manager and
d above). However, in respect of
f
SC/ST category dea
alerships termination will be
e
approved by the Direc
ctor (Marketing) HQ.
ii) In respec
ct of major irregularities, the
e
approving authority w
would be an authorized officer
r
not below the rank
of Dy. General Manager at
t
State/Region/Zonal lev
vel.
iii) In respec
ct of minor irregularities the
e
approving authority
would be the heard of
f
Territory/Regional Div
visional office.”

11)
Upon a perusal of the re
ecord, including the abovesaid
d
noting, w
what emerges is that the proce
eedings were recommended by
y
different a
authorities, i.e. GM (Retail) Nor
rth; GM (Sales) Retail HQ; GM
M
(Highway
y Retailing), HQ; which were
concurred by ED (Retail), I/c.
.
And, fina
ally, the approval was accorded b
by the Director (Marketing), on
n
06.03.201
12. It is equally important to no
ote that there is no evidence on
n
record, wh
hich could convince this Court t
o conclude that the file noting is
s
a result o
of any fabrication at the behes
st of any of the signatories, as
s
referred to
o above. Merely because the fact
tual aspect was not incorporated
d
in its ord
der by the Appellate Authority
y, would not render the noting
g
fabricated
d. Further, once the issue in que
estion was not raised before the
e
Appellate
e Authority, it had no occasion
n to return any finding, in this
s
regard. Th
herefore, the first argument raise
ed by learned Senior counsel for
r
the petitio
oner does not carry any force and
d the same is rejected.
12)
Before embarking upon the
second issue, it is necessary to
o
have a gla
ance at clause 8.6 of the Guidelin
nes:-
“In case of Cr
ritical irregularities leading to
o
termination, the Head o
of the State office/Regional
l
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.08 17:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RA-CW-42
CWP-1084
26-2017 in/and
-5-
4-2013 (O&M)


office/Zonal office of the con
ncerned OMC or their nominee
e
before recommending/app
roving the termination of
f
dealership will provided
a personal hearing to the
e
signatories to the dealership
p or their nominee(s). However,

if signatories to the dealers
ship or their nominee(s) fail to
o
attend the hearing on an ap
ppointed date, one more chance
e
will be given and after that
t the case may be processed ex
x
party based on available fact
ts.”

13)
A perusal of the abovesaid p
provision clearly postulates that
t
the author
rity concerned was required to e
extend an opportunity of hearing
g
to the p
etitioner, before proceeding to
o pass the termination order.
.
However,
, the record is conspicuously sil
lent, in this regard. Therefore,
,
the stand
set out on behalf of the Corpora
ation that since the petitioner had
d
been issu
ued the show cause notice, to w
which, it even filed a reply, the
e
clause 8.6
6 stood complied with, was not
ted for the purpose of rejection
n
only. An
opportunity of personal hear
ring is one of the mandatory
y
requireme
ents, and cannot be diluted, unde
er any circumstance. Thus, this
s
Court has
s no hesitation to conclude tha
at clause 8.6 was not complied
d
with, befo
ore terminating the dealership ag
greement. Accordingly, the order
r
dated 28.
.03.2012 (Annexure P-9), bein
ng passed in contravention of
f
clause 8.6
6 of the Guidelines, does not pas
ss the test of legality. Likewise,
,
the Appel
llate Authority has also grossly e
erred, while not appreciating this
s
crucial as
spect of the matter in its corre
ect perspective. Therefore, the
e
order date
ed 06.12.2012 (Annexure P-14)
), also loses its significance on
n
this score
, alone.
14)
In the wake of the above, bo
oth the impugned orders are set
t
aside . Co
onsequently, the matter is remi
itted to the Territory Manager
r
(Retail) c
concerned, with a direction to re
e-consider the same, and pass a
a
speaking
order, but only after affording a
adequate opportunity of hearing
g
to an auth
horized representative of the peti
itioner. Further, this Court does
s
not deem
appropriate to adjudicate the o
other ancillary issues, which are
e
left open t
to be raised before the authority
concerned, which, in turn, shall
l
consider a
and decide the same, while passi
ing the speaking order.
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.08 17:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

RA-CW-42
CWP-1084
26-2017 in/and
-6-
4-2013 (O&M)


15)
Since the impugned order
r, terminating the petitioner’s
s
dealership
p agreement, was passed way
y back in the year 2012, the
e
Territory
Manager (Retail) concerned, sh
hall conclusively decide the lis
s
within tw
o months from the receipt of a ce
ertified copy of this order.
16)
The petition stands disposed
of, in the above terms.
17)
Since the main petition is di
isposed of, no separate order is
s
required t
to be passed in RA-CW-446-2
2017, and the same also stands
s
disposed o
of, along with other pending mis
scellaneous application, if any.






01.09.202
Ak Sharma



26
( KULDEEP TIWARI )
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned
Whether reportable
Yes
Yes/No

AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.08 17:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document