Antriksh Gargee vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1623 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6038/2014

Antriksh Gargee

----Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Chand Gargee (father of the petitioner - in person - on VC).

For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta on VC.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 27/01/2022 Pronounced on 02/02/2022

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to

refrain from coming to the Courts.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following

relief:

"A writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioner and (A) the respondents no. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to issue the reconstitution order of the firm M/s. Snehdeep Gas Agency as Proprietorship of the humble petitioner.

(B) any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner giving direction to the respondents no.1 to 3 to immediately revoke the

(D.B. SAW/1284/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(2 of 6) [CW-6038/2014]

suspension and restore the supply to the humble petitioner."

3. Mr. Kuldeep Chand Gargee, the father of the present

petitioner, who appeared before this Court through virtual mode

submitted that the respondent-Corporation allotted a

distributorship of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in cylinders to the

petitioner's deceased wife, in the SC/ST category in the year

1982.

3.1 He further submitted that due to certain reasons, the

petitioner was appointed in the Firm as Manager in 2007, and

inducted as a partner having 25% share in the partnership

through a partnership deed executed on 01.04.2009 and an

application for the same was also submitted and the same was

never accepted nor rejected, despite many attempts by the

petitioner to remind the authorities.

3.2 He also submitted that the ownership of the agency vested

with Late Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki, and that any mention of

purchase of 25% of share by the petitioner was an inadvertent

error of oversight.

3.3 As per the written submissions, it is averred by the petitioner

that according to Clause 3 (5) of the revised policy guidelines, at

Ex. P/5, on the death of one partner, the Firm shall be

reconstituted with the surviving partner, and in support of this, he

also submitted that there is a precedent for the same, as was in

the case of the Indian Oil Corporation where surviving partner was

declared as 100% shareholder.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the reconstitution application, so submitted by Late

(D.B. SAW/1284/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(3 of 6) [CW-6038/2014]

Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki, was already rejected by the concerned

authority on 15.10.2012 and the same was also conveyed to her,

and the said communication is also placed on the record.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that

this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner at a belated

stage in the year 2014, as the communication was sent to Late

Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki in the year 2012 itself.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that

neither the reconstitution application, nor the writ petition outlines

as to how the petitioner's claim for reconstitution arises, given

that he is not the proprietor of the gas agency, and therefore, the

petitioner does not have privity in the matter; hence, the relief

sought against the respondent-Corporation is not maintainable.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that

the inducting of the petitioner into the partnership of the gas

agency was in breach of the Agreement entered into between the

concerned authority and Late Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki, and

therefore, any of the rights, as claimed by the petitionerare not

valid per se, and that a show cause notice for termination was also

issued to Late Smt. Sneh Lata Solanki. Learned counsel also

submitted that multiple reconstitution applications were submitted

before the respondent corporation, one claim being from the

apparent daughter of Late Smt. Solanki, and another from a

person claiming to be her husband have been filed before the

respondent-Corporation.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the

distributorship itself comes to an end upon the death of the sole

(D.B. SAW/1284/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(4 of 6) [CW-6038/2014]

distributor, as is the case in the present petition, and therefore, no

question survives for the reconstitution proposal.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

10. This Court observes that the facts as narrated by the

petitioner and the assertions made on behalf on Late Smt. Sneh

Lata Solanki do not appear to be true, as is evident from the

record of the present petition, as also the emphasis laid by the

learned counsel for the respondents.

11. This Court finds that the agreement was entered into

between the respondent-Corporation and Late Smt. Sneh Lata

Solanki, on certain grounds, one being that the deceased was a

member of the SC community, that do not exist after her demise.

And therefore, that the petitioner's claim of standing in shoes of

late Smt. Sneh Solanki is not sustainable.

12. This Court also finds that the entering of the petitioner into

the partnership of the gas agency of the Late Smt. Solanki was in

the breach of the agreement entered into by her with the

respondent-Corporation, and therefore, the claims of the

petitioner seeking to enforce rights against the respondent-

Corporation, do not hold good.

13. This Court, after looking into the record of the present

petition, finds that the 'Revised Policy Guidelines for Reconstitution

RO dealership/LPG Distributorships/ SKO - LDO Dealerships' dated

01.12.2008 clearly outline that, under Para. 3.5, the partnership

shall be reconstituted with a legal heir of the deceased partner of

the partnership and the surviving partners, and that in case, for

whatsoever reason, the legal heir is unwilling or not present, then

(D.B. SAW/1284/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(5 of 6) [CW-6038/2014]

the same reconstitution may be done with the surviving partner.

And that under Para.4, for dealerships or distributorships

belonging to the SC/ST category, may under certain circumstances

induct a minority partner in the partner from another category,

however, at an point of time i.e. before or after reconstitution, the

shareholding of persons belonging to the category under which the

subject dealership/distributorship was allotted should be at least

75% of the total shares. If non SC/ST spouse of SC/ST

dealer/distributor is inducted as partner in the

dealership/distributorship, his/her share in the

dealership/distributorship shall be counted as SC/ST share.

Further, under Para. 6.4 proposals found deficient and not

suitable for approval will be disposed off with suitable

communication giving reasons for rejection of proposal.

14. Further, the communication, dated 15.10.2012, as placed on

the record at Ex. 10, was issued by the respondent corporation to

Late Smt. Solanki stating that reconstitution proposal, already so

made, was not considerable to the respondent corporation.

15. And that, the induction of the petitioner into the gas agency

distributorship firm in question, was to be made with the prior

approval of the respondent corporation, as was a necessary

condition to be complied with, as laid down in Para.21 of the

'Domestic & Commercial Agreement', dated 26.08.1994, entered

into between Snehdeep Gas Agency and the respondent

corporation. And that these inconsistencies in the management of

the said gas agency were recorded in the suprise investigation

report, dated 24.09.2007, carried out by the respondent

corporation.

(D.B. SAW/1284/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(6 of 6) [CW-6038/2014]

16. This Court also observes that the respondent-Corporation,

after taking into consideration the factual matrix of the matter,

and in accordance with the revised policy guidelines and the facts

brought before it through the suprise investigation report were

found to be in violation of the agreement entered into between the

respondent corporation and late Smt. Solanki, took the decision,

which was also clearly communicated to Late Smt. Solanki herself,

to deny the reconstitution in question and suspend the

distributorship of M/s. Snehdeep Gas Agency. Therefore, the claim

made by the petitioner that the reconstitution application was

pending before the respondent authority is also a falsehood, as is

reflected from the record.

17. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not

find it a fit case for making any interference under the writ

jurisdiction.

18. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

SKant/-

(D.B. SAW/1284/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)