M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. versus M/S. Super Highway Services & Anr.
How later courts have used it
- Termination based on a laboratory test is illegal where notice of the test was not served or gave inadequate time for the dealer to be present.1
- Objections to writ maintainability, such as alternative remedy, must be argued before the Single Judge; mere mention in pleadings is insufficient.2,3,4,5
- A writ court can restore a dealership where an arbitrator found termination illegal but denied restoration for want of jurisdiction.6,7
- Contractual timelines for sample testing are directory, and minor delays are immaterial unless the dealer objects.8
- Termination for dispensing unit irregularities requires evidence linking the dealer to the manipulation, not just stock variations.9
- Where no specific clause incorporates the governing Act, termination is governed by the contract alone.10
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here are invoked for two core propositions: that termination of a dealership is a serious action demanding strict adherence to guidelines and natural justice, and that objections to maintainability, such as alternative remedy, must be raised and pressed before the court below. Courts have discussed the need for prior notice and opportunity to be present at laboratory testing, and the consequences of departing from those requirements. Some decisions have strictly applied the principle regarding unargued objections, dismissing review petitions where such objections were not pressed.11,1,12,2,3,4,5,13
Courts have distinguished the authority where contracts contained no specific clause incorporating the applicable Act, or where natural justice was observed and irregularities were proved. In contrast, termination orders were set aside where guidelines requiring hearings or reports were not followed, or where tests were conducted without notice. The principle that a writ court can restore a dealership declared illegally terminated by an arbitrator, where restoration was not granted for want of jurisdiction, is also drawn from the authority.10,14,15,1,6,7
The temporal requirements for samples reaching laboratories have been held directory, not mandatory, bearing no relation to quality. However, where samples tested had unexplained discrepancies in batch or container numbers and the laboratory report was silent on which sample was tested, the process was found invalid. More recent orders have also examined whether dispensing unit logs or stock variations justify termination, requiring evidence linking the dealer to the irregularity.8,1,16,9
Some decisions refer to the authority without applying its core holding. These address consumer forum disputes, contractual amendments and penalties, or the authority's interplay with arbitration clauses, finding the facts distinguishable. The authority was relied upon to uphold interference with arbitral awards where cross-examination was denied, warranting setting aside the award.12,3,17,18,16
Citing judgements
Rajasthan Transformers and Switchgears Vs North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr.
Outcome: DismissedDistinguishedFMAT 335 of 2025; Rajasthan Transformers and Switchgears vs. North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and another; declaratory suit; manufacturer of electrical transformers; testing at CPRI Bhopal; letter dated April 21, 2025; ad interim injunction granted April 25, 2025; injunction vacated August 04, 2025;
DismissedDistinguishedOpenThis High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the termination of a petroleum dealership agreement. The court rejected claims that the Petroleum Act, 1934 was violated and dismissed allegations regarding inspection and testing procedures as without merit.
DismissedDistinguishedOpenBharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through Its Territory Manager Retail Shri Neeraj Kumar Jaria Vs Sharma Filling Station through Its Authorised Signatory Sri Anil Kumar Choubey
Outcome: AllowedDistinguishedIntra-court appeal against a Single Judge order quashing termination of a petrol pump dealership for a broken metering-unit seal and dry stock. The Division Bench held the dealer's explanation unsatisfactory, that omission of one ground from the show cause did not vitiate the order, and that certiorari could not…
AllowedDistinguishedOpenBharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Jagannath & Co. & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 3838-3839 of 2013, decided April 12, 2013 (P. Sathasivam and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.; judgment by P. Sathasivam, J.).
DismissedRelied onOpenIndian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. versus M/S. R.M. Service Centre & Anr.
Outcome: AllowedDistinguishedMarketing Discipline Guidelines, 2012 — Clauses 2.4.4 (Note 2), 2.5 (Sub-clauses A and I), 5.1.1, 5.1.9, 5.1.11, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 — Termination of retail outlet dealership for positive stock variation of High Speed Diesel beyond permissible limits coupled with failure of samples — Timelines requiring samples to reach…
AllowedDistinguishedOpenHPCL terminated a petitioner's LPG distributorship for wrong declaration; the arbitrator held the termination illegal but declined restoration citing Indian Oil Corp v Amritsar Gas Service. The writ petition sought restoration of the dealership.
AllowedRelied onOpen
Show 6 more
The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed connected review petitions filed by consumers challenging an intra-court judgment that had quashed their writ petitions for lack of alternative remedy.
DisposedFollowedOpenThe High Court of Rajasthan dismissed multiple review petitions seeking review of a judgment refusing to quash a lower forum's order in a consumer dispute. The Court found no error apparent on the record regarding the failure to raise the alternative remedy objection during initial arguments.
DisposedRelied onOpenThis order by a two-judge bench dismissed multiple connected review petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The review petitioners sought to review a 2015 judgment dismissing their writ petitions for lack of maintainability based on lack of alternative remedy.
DisposedRelied onOpenA division bench dismissed multiple review petitions filed to review its earlier judgment dated 7/12/2015. The court held that no error apparent on the face of the record existed, as objections regarding alternative remedy were not pressed before the learned single judge whose decision was under challenge.
DisposedAppliedOpenA petroleum dealership termination dispute concerned denial of cross-examination on disputed laboratory documents. The Court held that the request was timely and should have been granted under Section 24(1).
Relied onOpenM/S Ghazipur Petrol Supply Co. Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another
Outcome: AllowedRelied onThe High Court set aside an order terminating a petrol dealership due to alleged dispenser irregularities. Finding the termination violated the Marketing Discipline Guidelines and principles of natural justice, the Court restored the agreement and directed supply resumption.
AllowedRelied onOpen
The High Court allowed a writ petition to restore a retail fuel dealership agreement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents enhancing writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes, the Court held that despite an arbitral award declaring termination illegal, the High Court can direct restoration of the dealership to prevent…
AllowedExplainedOpenPetitioner challenged termination of dealership by respondent IOC alleging technical malfunction caused change in K-Factor. Court held termination lawful under MDG 2012, noted technical expertise of authorities and distinguished cited precedents.
DismissedReferredOpenPetroleum dealership guidelines mandating higher wages, employee benefits, electronic payments, stricter delivery standards and monetary penalties were upheld. The appeals were partly allowed, setting aside the interference with those amendments while preserving dealers’ discretion over toilet access for persons other…
ReferredOpenPetroleum dealership termination for an additional dispensing-unit gear and stock variations was held unsustainable without evidence linking the dealer to insertion while seals remained intact.
DismissedReferredOpenThe High Court at Jodhpur dismissed multiple review petitions challenging a prior judgment that rejected writ petitions against consumer forum orders. The Court held there was no error apparent on the face of the record regarding alternative remedy objections as they were not argued or noted in the original judgment.
DisposedExplainedOpenMultiple review petitions challenging a 2015 judgment dismissing writs against consumer forum orders. The High Court held there was no error apparent on the record as issues regarding alternative remedies were not argued, and concluded the review petitions were barred by law and limitation, dismissing them.
DisposedExplainedOpen
Show 4 more
Review petitions challenging a 2015 Division Bench judgment were dismissed. The Court held no error appeared on the record as pleadings alone did not establish alternative remedy issues, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents was factually inapplicable.
DisposedReferredOpenThis writ petition challenged an order terminating petitioners as C&F agents without a prior notice or hearing. The High Court held that the termination violated natural justice principles and set aside the order, directing the respondent to issue a show cause notice and decide on merits.
AllowedRelied onOpenCdr. S. P . Puri (Retd.) Sole Proprietor M/S Spiral Services Vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee
DistinguishedTwo cross petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged an arbitral award on a licence to run a compost plant. The court upheld the termination as neither arbitrary nor mala fide, held the belated counter-claim was validly condoned, condoned delay in re-filing, and dismissed both…
DistinguishedOpenM/S Dolabari Kishan Seva Kendra and Anr. Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Limited Iocl and 4 Ors.
Outcome: DismissedReferredThe Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a dealership agreement by a State-owned corporation. The court held that the petitioners installed unauthorized gears and rejected claims regarding natural justice and inspection credentials.
DismissedReferredOpen