Mohan Ananda Bodre vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12643 Bom

                                 *1*                             3ca3040o20


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   WRIT PETITION NO.1445 OF 2020

 Mohan Ananda Bodre,
 Age : 52 years,
 Occupation : Agril & Business,
 R/o Plot No.16, Sundarach Colony,
 Near Agrasen School, Sakri Road,
 Dhule, District Dhule.
                                       ...PETITIONER
         -VERSUS-

 Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
 Through it's Chief Area Manager,
 Indane Area Office,
 Abhish Tower, 1st Floor,
 Behind Baba Petrol Pump,
 Mahaveer Chowk, Aurangabad.
                                       ...RESPONDENT

                              WITH
                CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3040 OF 2020
                               IN
                  WRIT PETITION NO.1445 OF 2020

 Subhash Ananda Bodhare,
 Age : 60 years,
 Occupation : Engineer (Retired),
 R/o Flat No.201, Sai Gunjan Apartment,
 Professor Colony, Deopur,
 Dhule, District Dhule.
                               ...APPLICANT/ INTERVENOR

         -VERSUS-

 1.      Mohan Ananda Bodre,
         Age : 52 years,
         Occupation : Agril & Business,
         R/o Plot No.16, Sundarach Colony,




::: Uploaded on - 09/09/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2021 08:23:25 :::
                                      *2*                            3ca3040o20


         Near Agrasen School, Sakri Road,
         Dhule, District Dhule.

 2.      Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
         Through it's Chief Area Manager,
         Indane Area Office,
         Abhish Tower, 1st Floor,
         Behind Baba Petrol Pump,
         Mahaveer Chowk, Aurangabad.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

                                ...
       Advocate for the petitioner in WP : Shri S.P. Shah
   Advocate for the Respondent/ Corporation : Shri Anand P.
                             Bhandari
 Advocate for the Applicant in CA/3040/2020 : Shri Sawant Amol
                                S.
                                ...

                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                             &
                                       S.G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE :- 06th September, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Civil Application No.3040/2020 :-

1. We have considered the submissions of the learned

advocates representing the respective sides on the Civil

Application.

2. By this Civil Application, the applicant who is a

retired engineer and who has occupied a high position in an

organization, seeks to intervene in the Writ Petition filed by the

*3* 3ca3040o20

petitioner, who is the younger biological brother of the applicant.

The petition is filed for challenging the cancellation of the LOI

issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. Extensive submissions have been canvassed by the

applicant and the original petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman.

The learned counsel for the respondent/ Petroleum Corporation

has assisted the Court with the documents and the guidelines of

the Corporation in relation to allotment of LPG distributorship,

to the extent of the Civil Application. Considering the issue

before us, we are not required to advert to the entire submissions

of the applicant and the original petitioner.

4. The grievance of the applicant is that he had entered

into certain financial transactions with the petitioner. Based on

the same, a partnership agreement was arrived at on 19.10.2017

and an internal arrangement between the applicant and the

petitioner was made. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into a

second agreement with the applicant on 18.04.2019. Certain

additions were made in the said agreement and both decided to

apply to the respondent Corporation under clause 2.3 of the

Reconstitution Guidelines of November, 2018. It is undisputed

that such an application was not officially filed before the

*4* 3ca3040o20

respondent Corporation. It is equally undisputed that the

petitioner had applied in his individual capacity pursuant to the

advertisement dated 01.09.2017, for a location which was

reserved for an ex-serviceman.

5. The grievance of the applicant is that the petitioner

entered into another agreement for setting up a partnership firm

on 08.06.2019 in which, he ousted the applicant and inducted his

wife as a proposed partner.

6. With the above developments, the applicant lodged a

complaint to the Chief Area Manager of the respondent

Corporation on 24.08.2019 through an advocate. With his formal

complaint, the respondent Corporation issued the show cause

notice dated 19.11.2019 calling for an explanation from the

petitioner. By reply dated 26.11.2019, the petitioner admitted that

his wife was inducted as a partner and that the petitioner's

brother was raising a dispute about the financial transactions

between them. He alleged that the applicant had taken undue

advantage of the petitioner, who is educated only upto 10 th

standard, by making him sign on the partnership agreements. He

has been cheated by his brother. It is in this backdrop that the

impugned order dated 15.01.2020 canceling the LOI dated

*5* 3ca3040o20

31.12.2018, was issued. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is

before us.

7. We find from the extensive submissions of the

learned counsel that the petitioner has not formally applied to the

respondent Corporation for inducting his wife into a partnership

firm under clause 2.3 of the Reconstitution Guidelines dated

01.11.2018. Officially, the respondent Corporation has not

received any application from the petitioner, after he was granted

the LOI, that he wanted to transform his application as an

individual/ ex-serviceman into a partnership firm. The spat

between the petitioner and the applicant is at a personal level. Per

contra, the grievance of the petitioner against the cancellation of

his LOI is put forth through a writ petition by which, he seeks

redressal. A private dispute between the two which has not been

officially translated into a change of entity for the LPG

distributorship, in our view, would not warrant the interjection of

the applicant in the writ proceedings. The Civil Application filed

by the applicant seeking intervention is, therefore, rejected.

Writ Petition No.1445/2020 :-

8. Since extensive submissions were canvassed by the

*6* 3ca3040o20

petitioner and the respondent Corporation and as the pleadings

were complete, the learned advocates consented for a decision on

the writ petition itself. As such, Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

9. To recapitulate, the following factors emerge from

the record :-

(a) An advertisement dated 01.09.2017 was published

by the respondent company calling for applications for LPG

distributorship at various locations.

(b) The petitioner applied on 28.09.2017 from the ex-

serviceman quota.

(c) He has offered two pieces of lands for setting up a

godown/ store house and for establishing a front office/

dealership from where he would cater to the distribution of LPG

gas cylinders.

(d) On 31.12.2018, after a verification as per procedure,

the Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued to the petitioner in his

individual capacity as an applicant.

(e) The LOI is merely an offer after selection and is not

a confirmation of allotment of an LPG distributorship.

         (f)      By the impugned communication dated 15.01.2020,





                                           *7*                         3ca3040o20

the LOI has been rejected by the respondent Corporation on the

ground that clause 5.4 of the LOI was violated by the petitioner.

(g) Hence, this petition.

10. Clause 5.4 of the LOI reads as under :-

"5.4 You are not permitted to induct any one as your partner nor make any changes in the constitution of the proposed distributorship in a manner other than what was intended at the time of application, without prior approval from Corporation."

11. It is obvious from the above reproduced clause that

the petitioner could not make a change in the constitution of the

proposed distributorship in a manner other than what was

intended at the time of the application, without prior approval

from the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation

has not imposed a complete prohibition on making a change in

the constitution of the proposed distributorship. If the petitioner

desires to make a change by inducting either the brother or his

wife and reconstitute his proposed distributorship, prior approval

of the respondent Corporation, was necessary. There would be no

objection from the respondent Corporation, unless there is any

other legal or policy impediment.

*8* 3ca3040o20

12. Factually, the petitioner is yet to make an official

application to the respondent Corporation invoking clause 5.4 for

inducting a person as his partner. The official file of the proposal

of the petitioner still rests on his application made as an

individual for a location reserved for ex-serviceman. In our

view, the respondent Corporation should not have acted on the

personal bickerings that have been brought to the fore by the

biological brother of the petitioner. Though the biological brother

may intend to wash dirty linen in public, the respondent

Corporation should be least bothered until the petitioner has

officially intimated to it that he was making changes in the

constitution of the proposed distributorship, in accordance with

it's policy. In the event, he does it unofficially and this interferes

in the professional relationship between the petitioner and the

respondent Corporation, after the dealership is commissioned or

even before the commissioning of the dealership, the respondent

Corporation could then consider as to whether, it could finalize

it's decision for granting the dealership to the petitioner.

13. It is apparent from the impugned order that the

Corporation unnecessarily took cognizance of a personal dispute

brought before it. The intention of the brother appears to be that

*9* 3ca3040o20

the petitioner should lose the LOI. In our view, the respondent

Corporation should not be bothered as long as the dispute is an

internal affair inter-se between the petitioner and his biological

brother.

14. The learned advocate for the petitioner has cited the

judgment delivered by this Court on 16.06.2015 in Writ Petition

No.4210/2015 filed by Namdev Bhimrao Bhil vs. The Union of

India and another. The petitioner Namdev had contended that he

had not breached any condition incorporated in the LOI. The

issue between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation was

as regards the construction of the godown on the plots mentioned

in the application and also on a plot not mentioned in the

application. Prior permission of the respondent Corporation,

allegedly was not taken. The petitioner had explained the

circumstances in which he was required to expand the

construction of the godown on such plots which were owned and

possessed by him. This Court, therefore, took a view that the

respondent Corporation was adopting a hyper-technical approach

and the applicant who had succeeded in getting the LOI, had

constructed the godown in order to facilitate the distributorship.

15. In the case in hand, the petitioner has already

*10* 3ca3040o20

constructed the godown on the land as was mentioned in his

application, by taking a loan of Rs.7 lacs. He is a semi-literate

agriculturist. As he was short of finances after having retired

from the armed forces, it appears that he had attempted to arrive

at a private financial arrangement with his biological brother.

This was behind the scene and there was no application officially

made by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation for altering

his status as an applicant from the ex-serviceman quota.

16. We are, therefore, unable to accept the strenuous

contention of the learned advocate representing the respondent

Corporation that clause 5.4 of the LOI, which permits induction

of a partner/ reconstitution of the proposed distributorship only

with the prior approval of the respondent Corporation, has been

violated, in the absence of the petitioner officially requesting for

or disclosing the reconstitution of his proposed distributorship.

As long as he continues his status as set out in the application on

record, the bickering between two siblings should not influence

the respondent Corporation.

17. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is

allowed. The impugned order dated 15.01.2020 is quashed and

set aside.

*11* 3ca3040o20

18. It is made clear that this decision is restricted to the

extent of the impugned order and if the respondent Corporation

finds any legal/ policy impediment in future in the setting up of

the LPG distributorship, before allotment or after allotment to the

petitioner, it would be at liberty to follow it's policies/ guidelines/

rules and take recourse to appropriate steps as are prescribed.

19. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)