An original allottee has no indefeasible right to restoration after reconstituting the distributorship as a partnership.

The petitioner was originally allotted an LPG distributorship as a sole proprietor in 1998.

In 2009, at her request, the distributorship was reconstituted as a partnership firm, with the petitioner holding 51% and Shweta Gupta 49%.

Disputes between the partners led IOCL to suspend supplies in October 2021 and issue a show-cause notice in April 2022.

Although both partners jointly represented that they had settled their differences, the petitioner soon asked IOCL to keep that representation in abeyance.

After further requests for a joint response went unanswered, IOCL terminated the distributorship on 24 August 2022.

The petitioner challenged the termination in 2024, seeking restoration in her individual favour.

IOCL stated that the site had since been allotted to another distributor.

Whether IOCL was justified in terminating the partnership’s distributorship because the partners’ continuing disputes impaired its operation and affected consumer supply.

Whether the petitioner’s status as the original allottee entitled her to restoration of the distributorship in her individual capacity, notwithstanding the subsequent partnership agreement.

Whether relief could be granted under Article 226 when the distributorship had been allotted to another entity and the petitioner had proceeded individually without impleading the firm or her co-partner.

The parties’ rights and obligations were governed by the 2009 distributorship agreement, not merely by the petitioner’s original allotment.

Clauses 11 and 23 required compliance with IOCL’s directions and, in a two-partner firm, active participation by both partners in managing the distributorship; Clause 27(a) provided for termination following breach, while Clause 27(n) permitted termination for conduct considered prejudicial to IOCL’s interests or reputation.

Article 226 review is not intended to substitute the Court’s assessment for that of a contracting authority in every commercial dispute.

The Court held that the petitioner’s original allottee status did not give her an indefeasible right to resume the distributorship individually after she had sought and entered into a fresh agreement in the firm’s name.

The partners’ joint settlement representation was followed by the petitioner’s request to place it in abeyance, and neither partner provided the requested joint clarification despite further opportunities.

IOCL could therefore conclude that the dispute persisted and assess its impact on the firm’s ability to manage the distributorship and maintain uninterrupted consumer supplies.

The Court also noted that the site had been taken over and allotted to another distributor, and that the firm and co-partner had not been impleaded.

It rejected the claim to restoration in the petitioner’s individual capacity and dismissed the writ petition, along with any pending applications.