A petitioner, claiming to be a legal heir via an unregistered will of a deceased dealership proprietor, sought to continue the outlet for six months. The Corporation required probate. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding no error in requiring probate before considering the claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36347 of 2018
Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Rajput Respondent :- The Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Jagdish,Radha Kant Ojha, (Sr.Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Sri Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Union of India.
In the present case, the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.10.2018 and further has sought a writ of mandamus to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation not to interfere in the running of the retail outlet. The said retail outlet was allotted to one Smt. Neelam Bhasin on 31.03.2018. Unfortunately, Smt. Neelam Bhasin died on 24.09.2018. The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of Smt. Neelam Bhasin. On the basis of an unregistered will executed by Smt. Neelam Bhasin, he claims entitlement to run the retail outlet on a temporary basis for the period of six months as is contemplated in the guidelines known as "Detailed Guidelines for Reconstitution of Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO Dealership" which was duly approved by the Ministry of Petroleum on 04.06.2018. In the said guidelines, in paragraph 10, a provision has been made that in case of death of proprietor or partner, a temporary arrangement can be made through legal heir of the proprietor or surviving partners to continue the dealership till formal reconstitution is done.
On this Clause, the petitioner has made a claim that he is legal heir on the basis of the unregistered will. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that first he must get probate and thereafter, approach the authorities. The petitioner has already filed a case for probate which is pending before the appropriate Court but Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel submits that upon execution of will in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner automatically becomes a legal heir and, therefore, the Corporation cannot deny the right to continue the dealership for the period of six months.
Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the Corporation has pointed out that in the same provision where temporary dealership can be allowed to the surviving legal heirs also contemplates that each of such cases will be considered by the Corporation on case to case basis.
In the present case, the Corporation has asked for the petitioner to get probate and thereafter, his claim would be considered merely on the basis of an unregistered will, the dealership cannot be allowed.
We do not find any error in the stand of the Corporation.
The writ petition, at this juncture, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.11.2018 Dhananjai
(Ajay Bhanot,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Corporation could deny the right to continue the dealership for six months on the basis of an unregistered will without requiring probate first.
Whether the temporary arrangement under guidelines for reconstitution can be allowed based on an unregistered will without a court-granted probate.
Prashant Kumar Rajput
The Union Of India
2 Others
Abhinava Upadhya
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
