Madras High Court
Shivshankar Agencies vs / on 27 June, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDER
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
and
C.M.P.Nos.11925 and 11923 of 2025
Shivshankar Agencies,
50 1/A Mahalakshmi Nagar,
Karambakkam,
Chennai – 600 116.
Represented by its Sole Proprietrix
Geetha Rajamahendran
... Appellant in W.A.No.1587/2025
M/s.Ranie Enterprises,
No.44/11 Perumal Nagar,
II Street, Nanganallur,
Chennai – 61.
Represented by its Sole Proprietrix
S.Nalini.
... Appellant in W.A.No.1588/2025
Vs.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
1.Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Shastri Bhavan,
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi1.
2.Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Indian Oil Bhavan,
G9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg,
Bandra [East]
Mumbai – 500 051.
3.The Divisional LPG Sales Head,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Chennai Divisional Office,
500 Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 35.
... Respondents in both W.As
Common Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the common order made in W.M.P.No.15752 of 2025 in
W.P.No.13987 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.15763 of 2025 in W.P.No.14005 of
2025 dated 23.04.2025.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Senior Counsel
for Mr. J.Melwin Jabaz in WA.1587/2025
Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
for Mr.J.Melwin Jabaz in WA/1588/2025
For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
Additional Solicitor General
in both the Writ Appeals
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge is to the refusal of interim order pending Writ Petitions,
challenge in which was to the policy of the Oil Company regarding transfer
of dealership.
2. The learned Single Judge refused interim orders on the ground
that earlier policy introduced by the Oil Company in the year 2018 was
upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in P.Radhakrishnan Vs. Union of
India and 5 others dated 07.07.2017 made in W.P.(MD)No.12607 of 2017.
Two other Single Judges of this Court pronounced orders following the said
pronouncement.
3. The said policy was subject matter of challenge in various High
Courts. We find that a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had by its
judgment dated 3rd December 2021 upheld the said policy. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had quashed the policy by its
judgment in Shailaja R.Khanvilkar and others Vs. Union of India through
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and others reported in 2019 SCC
OnLine Bom 2289 dated 30th September 2019. It is not in dispute that this
judgment of the Bombay High Court is subject to challenge before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Though leave has been granted, the operation of
the judgment has not been stayed.
4. It is in these circumstances, the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas came up with a new policy, which is slightly modified form of
the old policy for transfer of customers from the dealers of the Oil Company.
This new policy was also challenged in various High Courts across the
Country. At least 14 High Courts had granted stay of the policy.
5. The learned Single Judge on the premise that uniformity should
prevail within this Court, refused interim orders, since a Division Bench of
this Court had already upheld the policy. The learned Judge also on the facts
concluded that this policy which has been introduced now in 2025 is not as
strict as the earlier policy and there is a consideration of the welfare of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
existing dealers in the new policy.
6. Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Isaac
Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would
contend that since the judgment of the Bombay High Court quashing the
earlier policy has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view
of the fact that 14 other High Courts in India had granted stay of the new
policy, if the new policy is implemented in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
alone, because of the refusal of the interim order by the learned Single
Judge, the result will be an anomalous situation, where a dealer in Kerala or
Gujarat or Delhi where the policy has been stayed by the respective High
Courts will not suffer the transfer, but, a dealer in Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry will suffer the transfer. Further 14 High Courts across the
Country has granted stay of the policy, therefore, the dealers in at least half
of the Country will not face a situation of transfer of customers.
7. In matters involving Pan India consequences, the uniformity
that is sought to be achieved by the judiciary cannot be the uniformity in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
pronouncement of each High Courts, it should be the uniformity all over the
Country. This is the precise reason why the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
held that if the Central Law, which applies Pan India is struck down by the
High Court, it is invalid throughout the territory of the Union and it should
not be restricted to the area within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
8. No doubt, there are two conflicting judgments, one rendered by
the Division Bench of this Court on 07.07.2017 and another by a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court on 30th September 2019. But, the
consequence of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, rendered on 30th
September 2019, is that the policy of transfer of customers from one dealer
to another by the Oil Company has been declared to be void. Therefore, it
could not be applied to any dealers across the Country.
9. This judgment of the Bombay High Court has not been stayed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is in this background the present policy
has been introduced. No doubt, a certain amount of concession is given, but,
the present policy is same old wine in a new bottle. Minor changes here and
there will not make a new policy or make it any different from the old
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
policy. What is in question is the right of the Oil Company to transfer
customers from one dealer to another without reference to the dealer. In
fact, in paragraph No.13 of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in
Shailaja R.Khanvilkar and others Vs. Union of India through Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas and others (supra), the Court has observed that
policy of transfer made without consultation of the dealer whose rights will
be impinged by such transfer is bad. It is not shown as to whether any
consultation made with the dealers before introduction of the new policy
also.
10. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this is a case
where there should be a stay of the new policy, only to ensure that
uniformity prevail across the Country. If the stay is not granted, the
consequence would be a dealer in the neighbouring State of Kerala will not
suffer because of the transfer policy, whereas, dealers in Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry will suffer the consequence of the transfer policy viz., transfer of
customers from one dealer to another or a new dealer. Hence, we find that
there is a prima facie case for grant of stay. Therefore, there will be an order
of stay of policy pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
11. The learned Additional Solicitor General would contend that
the stay should be restricted only to the appellants before us.
12. This again would relate to a greater anomaly. The transfers
will not be effected from the appellants before us, but, the transfers will be
effected from the other dealers. A mutilated implementation of the policy
cannot be allowed by the Court. Restricting the stay order to the appellants
only would amount to making the law or policy implementable only in
respect of those who are not before the Court. This we certainly cannot
permit as it would result in other dealers moving this court there by
burdening this court with more dockets.
13. Therefore, there will be an order of stay of implementation of
the transfer policy across the board for all the dealers. The Writ Appeals
stand allowed as indicated above. However, in the circumstances without
costs. We would request the learned Single Judge to expedite the disposal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
the Writ Petitions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (K.S.,J.)
27.06.2025
dsa
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Shastri Bhavan,
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi1.
2.Chairman and Managing Director,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Indian Oil Bhavan,
G9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg,
Bandra [East]
Mumbai – 500 051.
3.The Divisional LPG Sales Head,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Chennai Divisional Office,
500 Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 35.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.SURENDER, J.
dsa
W.A.Nos.1587 and 1588 of 2025
27.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 03:48:07 pm )
