Patna High Court
Mrs. Mithilesh Singh vs M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.404 of 2023
======================================================
Mrs. Mithilesh Singh, Aged about 55 years (Female), W/o Sri Jai Prakash
Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Bahardurpur, P.O. Rajendra Nagar, P.S.
Bahadurpur, District- Patna, Bihar - 800016, Proprietor of M/s Maa Devi HP
Gas Agency, North of High School, Ishmela, Sitalpur, District- Saran, Bihar-
841221.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020.
3. The Deputy General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
North Central Zone, LPG Division, Plot No. 1, Nehru Enclave, Gomti
Nagar, Lucknow, (U.P.)-226010.
4. The Chief Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. Regional Office, Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan,
Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna- 800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-02-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
"i. For issuance of an order,
direction or a writ of mandamus for directing
the respondent Corporation to restore the
dealership awarded by the respondents in
favour of 'Maa Devi H.P. Gas Agency', Ishmela
in the District of Saran through dealership
agreement dated 30.11.2019 executed between
the petitioner (Proprietor of Maa Devi H.P.
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
2/11
Gas Agency' Ishmela in the District of Saran)
and the respondents in view of the fact that the
Learned Arbitral Tribunal in Arbitration Case
No. 01/2021 (arising out of order dated
07.07.2021
passed in Request Case No.57 of
2020) has been pleased to declare the order of
termination of dealership agreement dated
21.07.2020 to be illegal null and void being
arbitrary and unjustified but has not been
pleased to restore the dealership for want of
jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. versus Amritsar Gas
Service (1991) 1 SCC 533 in which it has been
held that Arbitrator has no power to restore the
dealership agreement where the contract
between the parties is determinable under the
provisions of Specific Relief Act.
ii. For issuance of an order,
direction or a writ of mandamus for directing
the respondent Corporation to continue the
LPG distributorship agreement dated
30.11.2019 in favour of the petitioner with
resumption of supply and distribution of LPG
Cylinder."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the
advertisement given by the respondent-HPCL, the petitioner had
applied for LPG Dealership and, thereafter, the petitioner was
running the unit without any complaint. That prior to the
application made to the respondent-HPCL, the petitioner was
working as a teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kankarbagh, Patna
and she submitted her resignation to the said post on 14.08.2004.
The said resignation was forwarded by the Principal of the
Kendriya Vidyalaya to the Assistant Commissioner, Patna Region
on 16.08.2004. Thereafter, the resignation of the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
accepted by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan on 10.02.2005 with
effect from 30.11.2004. The petitioner was granted the LPG
dealership in the year 2004. That in the interregnum, the petitioner
has lost her son aged 17 years and she went into depression and
suffered various medical ailments. The petitioner was diagnosed
with Major Depression Disorder and the Doctors have suggested
for her re-engagement with children to enable her to get back her
life and move forward. That during the bereavement, the Assistant
Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had visited her
home and taking into consideration the advise given by the
Doctors offered to reconsider the re-employment of the petitioner
to cope up with the parental grief. Thereafter, the petitioner sought
the written consent of the Senior Regional Manager, Patna HPCL
duly informing them about the unfortunate circumstances of the
death of her child, the advise given by the Doctors and also
seeking necessary permission for re-employment in the Kendriya
Vidyalaya vide letter dated 12.07.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner
was re-employed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Patna on
01.08.2005. However, the petitioner in order to see that no
problem would arise in future has again written a letter to the
respondent-HPCL seeking their permission. The petitioner was
under impression that her request for re-employment was accepted
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
by the respondent-HPCL as she did not get any rejection order
dissuading her from joining Kendriya Vidyalaya. The petitioner
was trying to get grip of her life and was able to cope up with the
grief by engaging herself in both the teaching profession and also
running the dealership successfully. The respondent-Corporation
vide letter dated 15.12.2013 i.e., after a gap of more than eight
years from the date of re-joining Kendriya Vidyalaya issued her a
show cause notice as to why the action should not be taken against
her for wrong declaration made by the petitioner in her application
as well as in her affidavit. The petitioner has given a suitable reply
to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation
invoked the arbitration clause vide letter dated 21.08.2013 and
appointed a retired officer of the Corporation as a sole arbitrator
for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The petitioner has
objected for appointment of an officer of the Corporation vide
letter dated 30.09.2013. The authority without taking into
consideration the objection filed by the petitioner has appointed a
former officer of the Corporation namely Sri R. Laxminarayan as a
sole arbitrator. The petitioner aggrieved by the appointment of the
above named person as an arbitrator has approached this Hon'ble
Court vide CWJC No. 9747 of 2014. In the meanwhile, as the term
of the dealership agreement dated 30.11.2004 was coming to an
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
end on 29.11.2014, the Corporation has extended the lease for a
further period of five years. Thereafter, the petitioner has also filed
a Request Case No. 14 of 2015 before this Hon'ble Court assailing
an appointment of an officer of the Corporation as a sole arbitrator.
That both the CWJC and the Request Case filed by the petitioner
were heard together and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Single Judge vide Judgment dated 05.05.2016, the petitioner
aggrieved by said Judgment has filed LPAs being LPA No. 1161 of
2016 & LPA No. 1162 of 2016. A Division Bench of this Court
vide Judgment dated 05.12.2017 have allowed the LPAs holding
that the appointment of an officer of Corporation as a sole
arbitrator was a misplaced exercise. Thereafter, the respondent
authorities have issued a reminder show cause notice dated
12.08.2019 wherein, the earlier allegations made against the
petitioner was reiterated. The petitioner in the meanwhile has
decided to take voluntarily retirement from service and requested
the Kendriya Vidyalaya vide letter dated 15.09.2019 to allow her
to take voluntarily retirement and the same was accepted by the
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vide order dated 29.11.2019 with
effect from 15.12.2019. As the extension period of five years
granted to the petitioner was coming to an end on 29.11.2019, the
respondent-Corporation has entered into fresh dealership for a
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
further period of five years on 30.11.2019. The respondent-
Corporation thereafter has issued a letter dated 21.07.2020
terminating the LPG distributorship on the ground of violation of
the Clause 24(c)(ii) of the LPG Distributorship Agreement and
also the subsequent agreements. The said termination order was
challenged by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court by way of
CWJC No. 7994 of 2020. However, the said CWJC was dismissed
by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment 26.03.2021 and the Request
Case No. 57 of 2020 was disposed of on 07.07.2021 appointing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava as the sole
Arbitrator. The said arbitration case was numbered as 01 of 2021
and the Hon'ble Arbitrator framed some issues and the final award
was passed on 21.10.2022 in favour of the petitioner holding that
the petitioner has not violated any of the terms and conditions of
the LPG Distributorship agreement. Further, holding that the
termination order dated 21.07.2020 is illegal, null and void and
the petitioner is entitled for the restoration of LPG Distributorship.
However, duly taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. versus
Amritsar Gas Service reported in (1991) 1 SCC 533 wherein, it
was held that the arbitrator cannot pass an award for restoring the
dealership has not granted the said relief, though it was held by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
arbitrator that the petitioner was entitled for the restoration of the
LPG Distributorship. The petitioner has thereafter, filed the present
writ petition seeking the above relief.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
respondent authority having suffered the award dated 21.10.2022
passed by the Arbitrator, wherein it has been clearly held that the
petitioner was not at fault and that she has not violated any of the
terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the parties
and that she was entitled to the restoration of the distributorship.
Learned counsel has stated that the relief sought for by the
petitioner could not be granted by the arbitrator on the basis of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. versus Amritsar Gas Service
reported in (1991) 1 SCC 533. Learned counsel has further stated
that the award passed by the arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 01
of 2021 has become final and, therefore, the prayer sought for in
the present writ petition has to be necessarily granted and the
CWJC allowed. Learned counsel has relied on the following
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan
Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Super Highway Services reported in
(2010) 3 SCC 321 and in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v.
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
Nilofer Siddiqui reported in (2015) 16 SCC 125 to buttress his
case.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of
the present writ petition and stated that the award passed by the
arbitrator has not become final as the said award was challenged
by the Corporation before the competent civil court under Section
34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Though the above stand
was taken on the earlier occasion subsequently, it is brought to the
notice of this Court that the application made by the respondent-
Corporation before the competent civil court under Section 34 of
the Act was dismissed confirming the award of the arbitrator.
Though the counsel for the respondent-Corporation has stated that
the authority in all likelihood are going to file an appeal against the
order of the civil court, the fact remains that as on date, the
authority has not yet filed an appeal and this Court cannot wait
forever for the authority to file an appeal against the judgment and
order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the civil court in Misc.
Arbitration Case No. 56 of 2023.
6. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the present
writ petition, it is necessary to extract the relief portion granted by
the arbitrator, which has held as under;
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
"(I) The claimant has not violated any
terms and conditions of the dealership agreement
executed between her and the respondents
Corporation on 30.11.2019.
(II) The termination order dated 21.7.2020
is illegal, null and void being arbitrary and
unjustified.
(III) The claimant is not entitled of her
LPG distributorship along with restoration of all its
function, operation, supply, distribution etc.
(IV) The dealership agreement dated
30.11.2019 cannot be restored and cannot be remained
operative until expiry of its terms.
(V) The respondents Corporation shall pay
amount of Rs. 12,41,285/24 to claimant with simple
interest of 6% per annum there on from the date of
termination order dated 21.7.2020 till its realisation.
(VI) The respondents Corporation shall
pay the amount of commission of one month to
claimant within three months from the date of this
Award failing which the Corporation shall pay simple
interest of 6 % per annum there on. The amount of one
month commission will be the same which was paid to
claimant in preceding month of passing termination
order dated 21.7.2020.
(VII) In the facts and circumstances of the
case both the parties shall bear their litigation cost."
7. A perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner is not
at fault and has not violated the terms and conditions of the
agreement, the arbitrator has clearly held that the petitioner has not
misled the authorities at any point of time or during the grant of
the dealership. Further, the arbitrator has held that the termination
of the dealership is contrary to the agreement and the same is
totally illegal, null and void. The petitioner under the impression
that the respondent authority are going to drop all proceedings
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
against her has taken voluntarily retirement from her service and
as on the date the order of termination was passed, she had no
other means of livelihood except the LPG dealership. The
authority ought to had taken a pragmatic view of the entire
situation duly taking into account the fact that the petitioner had
lost a son aged 17 years and her re-employment in the Kendriya
Vidayalya was only on the advise of the Doctors to re-engage
herself with children and to overcome the grief and emotional
distress that she was suffering. The authority seems to have lost
sight of the above fact and have passed the impugned order
without verification in a mechanical manner. The order passed by
the authority is in complete violation of principles of natural
justice and equity and, therefore, this Court is constrained to order
the restoration of the dealership immediately.
8. Having regard to the above, the impugned order of
termination dated 21.07.2020 is set aside and the prayer sought for
by the petitioner for restoration of her dealership is allowed, the
authority is directed to restore the dealership of the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is
made clear that in case the respondent-Corporation files any
appeal against the judgment of the civil court passed in Misc.
Patna High Court CWJC No.404 of 2023 dt.05-02-2025
Arbitration Case No. 56 of 2023, the restoration of the dealership
shall be subject to the final outcome of the said appeal.
9. With the above direction, the present writ petition
stands allowed.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.02.2025.
Transmission Date NA
