Disposed¶20

Subhasini Hansda v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through Its Territory Manager

Jharkhand HC2 Dec 2025WPC/6612/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Subhasini Hansda v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr., W.P.(C) No.6612 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (neutral citation 2025:JHHC:35953), Rajesh Kumar, J., decided 02.12.2025. Petition sought renewal of BPCL petrol pump dealership per agreement dated 21.10.2010 and reopening of outlet closed since January 2025, invoking Articles 19 & 21 of the Constitution; withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law. Withdrawal/disposal only; no merits adjudicated; no precedent on dealership renewal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to work out remedy in accordance with law; no substantive relief granted. ¶20

Subhasini Hansda Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through Its Territory Manager — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:35953

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6612 of 2025

¶3

¶4

Subhasini Hansda, aged about 59 years, wife of Mohril Murmu, Resident of Village- Sundarpur, P.O Kathalia, Gram Panchayat Kathalia, P.S Masalia, Kathalia, District Dumka, Jharkhand …. …. Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

1 . Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through its territory manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Ranchi Retail Divisional Office, NIEL Complex, 3^rd Floor, H.B. Road, Near Kantatoli Chowk, at & P.O Kantatoli, P.S Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶7

2 . Arvind Prasad Sahu, son of Ramratan Sahu, Resident of Village Tamtam Tola, P.O & P.S., Balumath, District Latehar, Jharkhand

¶8

…. …. Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Resp.-BPCL : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Adv.

¶13

¶14

02/Dated: 02^nd December, 2025

¶15

1. Heard the parties.

¶16

2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- “(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) commanding upon respondent authority to specially the respondent no.1, to renew the lease of the petitioner and handover the petrol pump dealerships as per the terms and conditions of the agreement held dated 21.10.2010 for the authorized by the BPCL. It is further submitted that since January 2025, the petrol pump/outlet is complete closed due to mismanagement conducted by the private respondent no.2, now the petitioner fill-up all terms and conditions of the agreement held on 21.10.2010 inspite of that the respondent has not help to open the petrol pump/ outlet which is closed since January, 2025 is arbitrary, unjust and against the Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

(B) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) commanding upon the respondent authority to look out the matter the petitioner filed the several representations even that all the due amount clear by the petitioner now it is the duty of the respondent specially the BPCL to renew the lease of the outlet dealership as early as possible as because the petitioner now face the crises and heavy economic loss regarding the clearance of GST and others relevant issues for the running of the outlet/dealership as per the rules and regulations .”

¶18

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised no objection.

¶20

5. Permission is granted. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby, disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶21

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶22

02^nd December, 2025 Raja/-Uploaded on 03.12.2025

¶23

W.P.(C) No.6612 of 2025

¶24

Page No.2

Subhasini Hansda v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through Its Territory Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhasini Hansda v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through Its Territory Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Raut Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Land Reforms

M/S Shankar Mahto, through Its Proprietor Sh. Shankar Mahto Vs Union of India

Dinanath Bhagat Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Beranadit Minj Vs State of Jharkhand

M/S Drem Heaven Homes Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Union of India

Anil Chandra Kar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Revenue Registration and Land Reforms