Facts
The petitioner, M/s Devika Indane, was granted LPG distributorship at Jharia, Dhanbad, by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (“IOCL”) under a memorandum of agreement dated 08.04.2017.
Source reference: p.2The petitioner claimed that customers of the erstwhile M/s Jyoti Jwala Gas Agency, whose distributorship had been terminated on 30.07.2012, were not transferred to it after its distributorship commenced.
Source reference: p.4In March 2020, approximately 25,600 consumers of Jharia were temporarily transferred to the petitioner during the suspension of M/s Binod Gas Distributor’s distributorship.
Source reference: p.2After Binod Gas Distributor’s distributorship was revived, those consumers were restored to it on 17.10.2021.
Source reference: p.2The petitioner submitted representations seeking permanent transfer of the consumers but received no relief.
Source reference: pp.2–3Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to transfer of the regular refill customers formerly associated with M/s Jyoti Jwala Indane on the basis of IOCL Circular dated 25.08.2015 and the distributorship agreement dated 08.04.2017?
Source reference: pp.4–62. Whether the consumers of M/s Binod Gas Distributor, temporarily transferred to the petitioner during suspension of Binod’s distributorship, could be claimed permanently by the petitioner after Binod’s distributorship was revived?
Source reference: pp.2–3, 6–73. Whether the circular conferred an enforceable right upon the petitioner to demand transfer of consumers from another existing distributorship?
Source reference: pp.6–7Law Applied
The Court applied IOCL Circular No. SL/AKM/1601 dated 25.08.2015.
Source reference: p.5Under Clause 7(ii), where a new distributor is commissioned in a lone market, all registered consumers of that market are to be transferred to the newly commissioned distributor; under Clause 7(iii), where a new distributor is commissioned in lieu of a terminated distributor in a multiple-distributor market, consumers are to be transferred in accordance with the applicable norms, with surplus consumers being transferred if existing distributors remain above the prescribed restructuring norms.
Source reference: p.5The Court treated the circular as an administrative guideline requiring a pragmatic and functional interpretation, particularly in the context of maintaining uninterrupted LPG supply to consumers.
Source reference: pp.5–6The circular did not, however, create an unconditional or enforceable right in favour of a distributor to obtain consumers belonging to another operational distributorship.
Source reference: pp.6–7Reasoning
The Court found that M/s Jyoti Jwala Indane’s distributorship had been terminated in 2012, whereas the petitioner’s distributorship commenced only in 2017.
Source reference: p.6During the intervening period, the former consumers had been distributed among other distributors, and some consumers had subsequently been allotted to the petitioner after its commissioning.
Source reference: p.6The Court interpreted the circular as primarily facilitating alternate supply arrangements and regulating consumer reallocation, rather than guaranteeing that every consumer of a previously terminated distributorship would automatically be transferred to a later-appointed distributor.
Source reference: pp.5–6The temporary transfer of Binod Gas Distributor’s consumers occurred only because Binod’s distributorship was under suspension; once that distributorship was revived, restoration of its consumers to the parent distributor was justified.
Source reference: pp.6–7Further, the petitioner already exceeded the prescribed viability level, with approximately 14,000 active customers and monthly sales of about 5,500 refills against the benchmark of 4,400.
Source reference: p.6Accordingly, the petitioner could not establish either a continuing contractual entitlement or a right under the circular to demand permanent transfer of Jyoti Jwala’s or Binod Gas Distributor’s consumers.
Source reference: pp.6–7Holding
The Court answered the issues against the petitioner.
It held that the petitioner was not entitled to transfer of all consumers formerly associated with M/s Jyoti Jwala Indane and had no enforceable right to permanently retain the consumers of M/s Binod Gas Distributor, who had been transferred only as a temporary arrangement during suspension of Binod’s distributorship.
Source reference: pp.6–7The writ petition seeking mandamus against IOCL was therefore dismissed, with no direction for transfer of the disputed consumers.
Source reference: p.7Original Court PDF
M/S DEVIKA INDANE, JHARIAvsINDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
