Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Virendra Agarwal vs Bharat Petroleum Crop Ltd Anr on 1 March, 2023
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13459/2013
Virendra Agarwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Crop Ltd Anr
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Manager, Legal, BPCL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 01/03/2023 The present petition is filed assailing the termination order(s) issued by the respondent-company.
It is submitted by the petitioner that in the year 1985, LPG Distributorship was awarded by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to Late Shri Prem Nidhi Agrawal under the 'Freedom Fighter Category', who was the father of the present petitioner, Mr. Virendra Agrawal.
Thereafter, on 24.09.2008, Shri. Prem Nidhi Agrawal died and as a consequence of which, an agreement was executed qua the aforementioned Distributorship between the corporation and the present petitioner.
Subsequently, on 28.01.2012, an inspection of the Distributorship was conducted by the corporation, wherein certain irregularities were noticed. In this regard, a show cause notice dated 11.02.2012 was issued seeking necessary explanations from (D.B. SAW/1314/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 08/03/2023 at 10:52:45 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-13459/2013] the Distributorship qua the irregularities, as brought to the notice of the corporation. A reply was filed by the petitioner. However, vide order dated 05.04.2012, the corporation imposed a penalty per M.D.G treating the said irregularity/offence as a first irregularity/offence. The penalty so imposed, was deposited by the petitioner under protest. Thereafter, a further three complaints were filed by an unknown individual against the Distributorship. Accordingly, another show cause noticed dated 22.09.2012 was issued by the corporation seeking an appropriate explanation from the petitioner qua the subsequent complaints.
Vide order dated 05.12.2012, the respondent no.1- corporation imposed a penalty upon the petitioner, taking into account the aforementioned complaints made by an unknown individual and treating the same as a second offence. Thereafter, in March 2013, upon another complaint filed by one Mr. Atul Arora, the respondent no.1-corporation initiated another inquiry and proceeded to inspect the records of the Distributorship. During inspection, the team of the corporation provided a list of 218 consumers to the petitioner and directed him to establish the genuineness of the connections released to the said consumers.
Meanwhile, on 07.03.2013, the petitioner requested the Director (Marketing) to invoke the jurisdiction conferred vide Clause No. 38 of the Agreement and act as an arbitrator and adjudicate the dispute pertaining to the penal action against the petitioner dated 05.12.2012. Moreover, on the previously lodged complaint of Mr. Atul Arora, a team from the Office of C.B.I Jaipur conducted a surprise check of the Distributorship as well and prepared a Joint Surprise Check Memorandum.
(D.B. SAW/1314/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 08/03/2023 at 10:52:45 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-13459/2013] Thereafter, on 29.05.2013, a show cause notice was issued, after having entertained the complaint so put forth by Mr. Atul Arora as a third irregularity/offence, informing the petitioner of the termination of the Distributorship Agreement without any further notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause notice along with relevant documents. Additionally, no response was received from the arbitrator i.e. Director (Marketing) qua the invocation of jurisdiction under Clause No. 38 to adjudicate the dispute pertaining to the penal action dated 05.12.2012.
Despite the aforesaid, on 27.07.2013, the corporation verbally informed the petitioner that they had treated the alleged irregularities/offences mentioned in the complaint of Mr. Atul Arora as a third offence/irregularity within a span of two years from the date of occurrence of the first offence in April 2012 and as per M.D.G., had decided to terminate the Distributorship shortly.
Being aggrieved of the aforementioned predetermined decisions of the respondent No.1-corporation, the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Considering the fact that the petition was filed in the year 2013 and the petitioner was running his business in pursuance of the interim protection granted vide order dated 20.12.2013, the matter was heard at length by this Court. It is noteworthy that being aggrieved of the inaction on part of and the factum of no response from the Director (Marketing) qua the invocation of the jurisdiction conferred vide Clause No.38 of the Agreement to act as an arbitrator and adjudicate the dispute pertaining to the penal (D.B. SAW/1314/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 08/03/2023 at 10:52:45 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-13459/2013] action dated 05.12.2012, the petitioner submitted detailed representation(s) before the Director (Marketing) at the initial stage as well as on 22.12.2018. Furthermore, even on 25.12.2019, requests for disposal of the said application were filed.
In light of the arguments made herein-above and considering the fact that in the instant matter, disputed questions of facts are involved coupled with the availability of an alternate dispute mechanism as provided under Clause No. 38 (marked as 'Annexure-1) of the Distributorship Agreement, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Director (Marketing) or the competent authority under Clause 38 to adjudicate the said matter, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
It is made clear that any observation of this Court shall not influence the unencumbered and independent adjudication of the matter by the concerned authority, as stipulated under Clause No.38 of the Distributorship Agreement. Furthermore, the petitioner shall have the liberty to file additional submissions/contentions as well. It is expected that a detailed and well-reasoned speaking order shall be passed by the concerned authority, after having duly provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties.
Let the matter be listed after twelve weeks.
(SAMEER JAIN),J ANIL SHARMA /100 (D.B. SAW/1314/2014 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 08/03/2023 at 10:52:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)