WPMS/1132/2025 of M/S PALLAVI GAS AGENCY (156694) Vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1132 of 2025

M/s Pallavi Gas Agency ….....Petitioner

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others ….….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. K.R. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. Ashish Agarwal and Mr. Shankar Agarwal, Advocates for the intervener.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(i)Issue Writ or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside the suspension order dated 03.03.2025, along with all consequential communications and orders as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice (Annexure No.1). writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside the suspension order dated 03.03.2025, along with all consequential communications and orders as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice (Annexure No.1).

(ii)Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside the suspension order dated 18.03.2025 along with all consequential communications and orders, as it is based on false and misleading averments made by Respondent No.2 and is devoid of legal merit. (Annexure No.1)writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside the suspension order dated 18.03.2025 along with all consequential communications and orders, as it is based on false and misleading averments made by Respondent No.2 and is devoid of legal merit. (Annexure No.1)

(iii)Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to restore the Petitioner’s status and facilities writ, order, or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to restore the Petitioner’s status and facilities

that were available to him prior to the issuance of the impugned suspension orders for operation of the Petitioner’s business.

(iv)Issue Writ of Mandamus restraining Respondent no.3 from further harassing the petitioner or taking any adverse action against the petitioner’s gas agency during the pendency of the writ petition. no.3 from further harassing the petitioner or taking any adverse action against the petitioner’s gas agency during the pendency of the writ petition.

(v)Pass any other order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was provided distributorship of the LPG cylenders by the respondnet no.1 in Village Johri Kalsi, Tehsil Kalsi, District Dehradun. Fraudulantly, document was got executed from the petitioner by one Geeta Ram Nautiyal as sale deed, though the petitioner had believed that it was financial arrangement with him. The property was further sold. When complaints were made, the distributorship was suspended by the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 by the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2/Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation also suspended the license for three months. It is impugned herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was an owner of the land on which he has stored the LPG cylenders. He was running the distributorship for long. Based on the false complaint that the petitioner has sold the land, the petitioner was asked to reply. To which, the petitioner replied that he had never sold

the land, But subsequently, it was revealed that under the garb of financial transaction agreement, one Geeta Ram Nautiyal had got sale deed executed in his favour from the petitioner and Geeta Ram Nautiyal, subsequently, tranferred the land to some other person. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed suit for cancellation of the sale deed. He has never executed the sale deed, as such. Therefore, the suspension order is bad.

5. Learned counsel for the respondnet no.1 would submit that it is case of concealment of the facts and removal of documents from the public office etc. He would submit that complaint was received that the petitioner had sold the land on which the store was maintained. The petitioner was asked to respond. To which, the petitioner responded that he had never sold the property and he is still owner of it. He has filed an affidavit. He had also filed non-incombarance certificate. But thereafter, committee was constituted and it was found that the petitioner had sold the property and that property was further sold. Thereafter, the distributorship of the petitioner has been suspended for three months. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 would also submit that instant petition is not maintainable because in view of the agreement that has been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.1, the petitioner may approach the Arbitrator. There has been an arbitration clause in the agreement. As also against the order suspending the license of the petitioner by the respondent no.2, the petitioner may very well file an appeal under Section 6F of the Explosives Act, 1884 (“the Act”).

6. The existence of the arbitration clause between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 is not in dispute. Against the order suspending the license by the respondent no.2, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation, there is provision of appeal under

Section 6F of the Act. Therefore, in view of it, the petition may not be entertained because the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedies available to him. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

Jitendra

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 29.04.2025