Dismissed

M/S Shrawani Hp Gas Agency v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Nov 2017CW/3452/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the transfer of LPG gas agency business and appointment of new distributors. It held that the move was for customer convenience and did not violate government guidelines on refill ceilings, as customerBase had increased over time.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for interference was denied; respondents directed to follow future government guidelines.

M/S Shrawani Hp Gas Agency Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

1.S.B CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17989/2017

¶3

Prateek Gas Agency, Opposite Railway Station, Jaipur Road, Niwai, District Tonic, Through its Proprietor Smt. Sushila Salodiya, Wife of Dr. Bhushan Salodiya, Age about 60 years, Resident of 8, Gali No. 10, Shivaji Colony, Niwai District Tonk (Raj.).

¶4

. .... Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The Union of India 'th,~jou#h7[ its-Secretary Ministry of - > .-

¶7

Petroleum apd'Np8,u,ialedas, Sha$tPi.BQ%apan, New Delhi. 1% p.,*.? ye

¶8

g&x&

¶9

Hindust~~;P&troleum Corporation ~imited'thf6~~h its Chief ~xecuhwb %A%& Director, LPG, Petroleum House, I7*, Jamshedji Tatav.oad, Mumbai. 4% p*-

¶10

&Jh"*.%8 $ \

¶11

~h8 Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum orgtation Limited, LPG RO Je econd Floor, LIC investment Building, Bha

¶12

The District S

¶13

Sameer HP G , Ton k(Raj .). ner/respondents

¶14

2. S.B. CIVIL WR

¶15

Jaipur through Shri Rishi Kumar 9 013 5 Pa tel M a rg ,

¶16

Mansarovar, Jaipur

¶17

.... Petitioner

¶18

5"ywrT,yTTv> : ".Wrv LWX%%PTSX~~~~T~~B L * %. xm$ %&r p4

¶19

1. The Union of Indi~a hro'ug+~ts~~Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶20

2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Chief Executive Director, LPG, Petroleum House, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.

¶21

The Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, LPG RO Jeevan Nidhi, Second Floor, LIC investment Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.

¶22

4, The District Supply Officer, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶23

5. Naraniya HP Gas Agency Registered Partnership Firm having office at Shop No. 11, Ranjit Nagar, Near Sanganer Railway Station, Sanganer, Jaipur Through its Partner Mrs. Jyoti Naraniya W/o Sh. Sanjay Naraniya, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Khatik, R/o House No. 1 Leela Shah Colony, Near Dal Mill Sanganer, Jaipur(Raj.).

¶24

. .. Non Petitioner/Respondents

¶25

31 SIB. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3449/2017

¶26

M/s Ashok Gas Agency, A-134, Subhash Nagar Shopping Centre, Resident of C-1,

¶27

H .A
YSrpetitioner , .-

¶28

Versus

¶29

I. The Union o tary, Ministry of Petroleum an , New Delhi.

¶30

Hindustan Pet through its Chief Executive Di ouse, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, M

¶31

The Regional Ma etroleum Corporation Limited, LPG r, LIC investment Building, Bha 4;- - .r<r * <xr. i, * -?,& I .i ,:a 8< v, The District Su ppl$ibififi~:4tw -".P ,-vg4" J. ~ 'I." i:pu:r.:C&jj.astha b - .,n) . "g%GB*r ?=.&a w s,,x,,g&, *bq $;::::+,F,.3 Vaslndhra HP 4@&8: &gfi#y~-rg;~sfied Partnership Firm , +J' $y&$ia k@R?;$@z: %. vi n g office at Raj Rag&&&y&fips6h&+i#. 2+,-<: omp,,es yf3fIilqf ndraprasth Colony, Near rsery Circle, aishali@gagc;:p@,~~~hrough its Partner Dr. Vinita Bhardwaj W/o $j+chS@$yp3pp3dwaj, Aged About 44 years, By Caste rahm~~.n!% RowC193,'Nau~halya Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur(Raj.).

¶32

.. . Non Petitioner/Respondents

¶33

41 SIB. CIVIL WRIT PETITON NO. 3450/2017

¶34

M/s Mohan Gas Agency, G-16, City Plaza, Space Cinima, Banipark, Jaipur, Through its Partner, Suresh Kumar Sharma, Aged about 49 years, Resident of Plot No. 6,7, Gurjar Basti, Opp. Head Post Office, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶35

[CW- 17989/2017]

¶36

Versus

¶37

The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶38

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Chief Executive Director, LPG, Petroleum House, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.

¶39

The 'Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, LPG RO Jeevan Nidhi, Second Floor, LIC investment Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.

¶40

_-t@+_ i S' .& #

¶41

TheDistritSplo"~~~&Ja'.i;u~.Ra~asthan). ,, +3: dkr. 43 ,& i. ,j$ %%* #r-

¶42

h4@$ $.Pi

¶43

Kargil HerwqHP Gas Service Registered 3~a"rtqership Firm %;%@& ++ k- &$+

¶44

having\dffi"ce at Alankar Tower, Kabir Marg, Ban'ipark, Jaipur Thrqug:h its Partner Shri Digendra Kumar (ah&efjr;~~hakra y$J&!) S/o Shri Shivdan Singh, Aged About 48"fars, By ~ate Jat, R/o House No. 11461, ChitrokootFYojna, @P Jaipur(Raj.).

¶45

5. S.B. CIVIL WRI

¶46

M/s Shrawani HP Gas VKIA-I, Jaipur, Throug wall Son of Shri Sohan Lal Bhiwal, Age of 72, Dadi Bari Behind Allta Cinem

¶47

The Union Petroleum

¶48

Hindustan ****@SF>%** ",n '",,+ '%xa,*e^"&Wa _e mwd:_ :o>$so% e

¶49

Executive Directo,~ ~P-~L .#hPQ~~.~2:Rekr~~$Irlim ;I xi*< *bq %d **_...;.i_* Q mHouse, 6 17, Jamshedji .. 8 *

¶50

Tata Road, Mumbai.

¶51

The Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, LPG RO Jeevan Nidhi, Second Floor, LIC investment Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.

¶52

The District Supply Officer, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶53

Kargil Hero HP Gas Service Registered Partnership Firm having office at Alankar Tower, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur Through its Partner Shri Digendra Kumar (Mahaveer Chakra

¶54

Vijeta) S/o Shri Shivdan Singh, Aged About 48 years, By Caste Jat, R/o House No. 1/461, Chitrokoot Yojna, Jaipur(Raj.).

¶55

. . . Non Petitioner/Respondents

¶56

6. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3451/2017

¶57

M/s Mahalaxmi Gas Service, B-2, Geetanjali Tower, Sodala, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Through its Proprietor, Devendra Singh Rathore, Son of Shri Vijay Singh Rathore, Age about 57 years, 22, Green Evenue, Khatipura Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶58

. ..Petitioner

¶59

The %**?2%%.wue *.42 .-p &$,9

¶60

q$'i,stan Petroleum Corporation Limited throughtt$Chief ,& F

¶61

Executive Director, LPG, Petroleum House, 17, Ja'mshedji Tata Road, Mumbai. -. .

¶62

The Regional leum Corporation or, LIC investment

¶63

,4. The District

¶64

Vasundhra HP tered Partnership Firm Having office at Raj Raje Colony, Near Nursery Circle, s Partner Dr. Vinita Bhardwaj ed About 44 years, By Caste alya Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Naga

¶65

etitioner/Respondents

¶66

7. S.B. CIVIL W

¶67

-;?F&+Z~ s.;yqz$

¶68

Jhalawar Gas Agency, 0ppo3it"e' NU Offiite, NH-12, Shilpa Lane Colony, Jhalawar, Through its Proprietor Pushpa Devi Jaiswal W/o Late Shri Ram Pratap ~aiswal, aged about 65 years, Resident of Near Railway Station, Yashoda Bhawan, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar (Raj.).

¶69

.... Petitioner

¶70

VERSUS

¶71

I. The Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, Ne,w Delhi.

¶72

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Chief Executive Director, LPG, Petroleum House, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.

¶73

The Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, LPG RO Jeevan Nidhi, Second Floor, LIC investment Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.

¶74

The District Supply Officer, Jhalawar (Rajasthan).

¶75

5. Satyam Gas Agency, Near Gaushala, Bhoi Mohalla, Jhalawar (Raj.).

¶76

%"2 7- ' . h8q pd " H.!: "482 No:n &!EN. P 3 titioner/Respondents <" " iil: 8. S.B. CIVIL &RIP PETITION No. 15533'jr281$, P;%x%, %@ %"@ " I 9 *K, GyA r:** B. Malka ,&$ekice, 2203-2204, Mohd. Bux Roag ,Nasirabad, >&.;:' z& Ajme h its Proprietor Amin Ahmed Khan s/o ~tiiddshakoor (; e Khan out 75 years, Resident of 846, Raj ~ari:?&~oad, Nasir .abad, Ajmer(Raj.).

¶77

.... Petitioner

¶78

The Union o etary Ministry of Petroleum an Hindustan Petrole ited through its Chief Executive Director, se, 17, Jamshedji ~ata Road, Mumbai.

¶79

troleum Corporation or, LIC investment

¶80

5. Nasirabad HP Gas,Agen"cy,Pa;n,chmy&a!tti Chauraha, Station ps6imiarC:-j~l)

¶81

Road, Nasirabad, AJ~~P CWaj. .%$

¶82

... Non Petitioner/Respondents

¶83

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vijay Poonia

¶84

Mr.Anil Kumar

¶85

For Respondent(s) : Mr.VD Gathla, AGC

¶86

Mr.Anand Sharma

¶87

Mr.Laxmikant for Mr.RK Daga

¶88

Mr.Dhruv Atre for Mr.HS Sinsinwar

¶89

Mr.Pratyush Raj for Ms.Surkriti Kaslilwal

¶90

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDAR1

¶91

Judqment

¶92

21/11/2017

¶93

By these writ petition, a challenge is made to the -$' V";y transfer of some business. oflthe p;e.&t:ones' firm. It is in violation 4 8% <v: A A$ t,$ - a%& Ad@- ex 4 to the guideline??&iss'ued by the Government. of&$dia from time to $.td k- J'?: &, time. b 9. . ./,:, 5~.;k& $ -.

¶94

A reference of the guidelines issued on 2gth ~ofhember,

¶95

2004 has been gi to show that how the marketing lated by the Oil Companies/Corpora istribution of the LPG in the villages, ins

¶96

Learned cou rs have made a reference of the n ion of India in the year 2015 publish guidelines has not been applied on th directions given should cover even exi G. The reply of the Oil Company shows that the petitioners. It is affecting them in view of the fact that without exceeding refills of more than 10,000 in case of town having population of less than 10 lac, business has been transferred.

¶97

For illustration, in the writ petition bearing

¶98

No.17989/2017, the petitioner would be now getting refills of around 9000 per month and odd after transfer of business,

¶99

whereas, it should get minimum 10,000 refills as per the table given in the guidelines. In view of the above, transfer of business by withdrawing 1824 customers on lgth September, 2017 and, further, withdrawal of 1465 customers on 20th September, 2017 in the aforesaid writ petition, has affected the petitioner.

¶100

Accordingly a prayer is made to direct the respondents to apply the to transfer the t business of d P\pd rP ;I ?:have considered the submissions made '"by learned . vy hr @&) @"" couns6lW the petitioners and perused the record. $4 7b

¶101

ners have made

¶102

and other in June s been made that guideline of 2016 the petitioners, To consider the afores 0.2.4. I. 1.1 'Market Ceiling" The aforesaid

¶103

the "la maxim u m ptpbe. $y-'e\a tk,ep$ptfnestic refi I I s..* sgyq %Jg$ ( "i sales stipuAtkd io; LPG iktributoyshis and based on the market. Market Ceiling Limit and the Feasibility Norm for different types of Distributorship Area is proposed below:

¶104

Type of	Population as per	Refill Ceiling Limit	Refill Sale per
Distributorship area	census 2011	per month	month for Feasibility limit
Sheheri Vitrak	Cities with population>40 lakh	20,000	10,000
	Cities with 20 to 40 lakh population	15,000	7,500
	Cities with 10 to 20 lakh population	12,000	6,000
Rurban Vitrak	Towns with<10 lakh population	10,000
Gramin Vitrak	Village/Cluster of Villages	5,000
Durgam	Village/Clusterof	1,500
I Khetriya Vitrak	I villages	1	I I

¶105

having population of 0 per month therein, he above, distributor iling of 10,000 per month. It is an admittgd::$a~~$haf;pq<~etitioners Q 4 -G4 .o were having refills of more than 10,000 before transfer of business. In view of the above, even if the new guideline is applied, ceiling is maintained. The addition of new distributors is for the benefit and convenience of the customers and to see that one agency may not be overburdened with the work affecting their service. With the growth of population and expansion of the area, the addition of

¶106

customers takes place, as has happened in the present case. The petitioners were not having same number of customers in the beginning as they were having before transfer of customers. In fact, the customers increased with passage of time. The respondents took notice of total refills and decided to appoint new distributors in the area in question and, in doing so, I do not find violated. It is not that the that agency +wb sible and viable. e 4 q' , " king into consideration the aforesaid, I do$qt any *p .' reason to cause interferer respondents and, %. otherwise, if the pe ction in engagement of new distributors, d at the time when advertisement for i t , the prayer of the petitioners is to follow y the respondents from time to time and I do not ents have violated it. not find any reason to cause interference respondents and, se d. It is, however, *.,% .. observed that in futurfiKt-9gtbe "rEsp@g$ents would follow the r q9+ k$-qqd guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time.

¶107

A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

¶108

(M. N. BHAN DARI) I.

¶109

Preeti, PA/l06-113

M/S Shrawani Hp Gas Agency v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shrawani Hp Gas Agency v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hari Nayak Vs Ranjeet Kumar Malik and Anr.

Kailashchand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Surgyan Saini Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Janki Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Shiv Datt Sharma Vs State Education Department Anr.