Dismissed

Badam Rajender v. Union of India (Deleted)

Telangana HC4 Dec 2024WP/21261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Bench dismissed a petition seeking a mandatory writ to stop a state-owned oil company from supplying products to a dealership. The court held the dispute was private in nature, involved internal partnership conflicts, and the petitioners failed to comply with the Oil Company's procedural requirements. The petition was dismissed as un-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Directions to stop supply of petroleum products were rejected.

Badam Rajender Vs Union of India (Deleted) — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[3405 ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI^BHATTACHARYA

¶8

WRIT P ETITION NO: 21261 OF²⁰²³

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 . Badam Practitioner, Rajender, Rl/o H.No.4-4-52, S/o late^{Beside Venkateshwara Temple, Jawahar Narsimulu,Aged54} -years, Occ-. Medical^Road, Korutla Village and Mandal,^{Jagtial District.} --

¶11

1. Gantedi Sririivas, S/o late^{Ra.ieshwar, Aged 50 years,Occ- Govt. Employee'} FJo Gandhi Road, Korutla Village and^{Mandal, Jagtial District...'ET'T'ONERS}

¶12

AND

¶13

Union of lndia (Deleted), Rep. by^{its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleumand} Natural Gas, New Delhi. (R1 is deleted from the array of Respondents^{as per Court Order dt.} 23.09.2024 in lA NO.^112024.)

¶14

Hindustan Petroleum Corpordtion^{Ltd, Rep. by its Senior Regional Manager} Retail, H.No.9-1-130/1 , Sebastian^{Street, S.D. Road,P.B. No.5,} Secunderabad^- 500^003.

¶15

ihe Reqional Manaqer,^{Hindustan Petroleum CorporationLtd., H No 24-7-29,} Second?loor, Fathiina^{Complex. Fathimanagar, Kazipet, KazipetDistrict'}

¶16

Kotha Sudheer, S/o Late^{Koiha Vaikuntam, Aged44 years, Occ-Business,} R/o H.No.1-3-375, Godam Area,^{Korutla VillageandMandal, Jagtial District'}

¶17

Neeli Kashinatham, S/o^{late NeeliGangaram, Aged 56 years,R/o Korutla} Village and Mandal, Jagtial District. ...RES.ONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or^{direction, more particularly one in the} nature of writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe action of RespondentsNo.2 and 3 in} supplying the Petroleum^{productson retail outlet to M/s SrinivasaPetrol Pump} HPCMS-HSD Dealers, situated at^{KorutlaVillage and Mandal, JagtialDistrict} inspite of expiry of dealership agreement,^{as arbitrary, illegal,violative of Article} 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution^{of lndia, contraryto their own letter} d1.24.12.2014 and consequently^{direct the RespondentsNo.2 and 3 to stopsupply}

¶19

of Petroleum products to M/s Srinivasa Petrol Pump HPCMS-HSD^Dealers, situated at Korutla Village and Mandal, Jagtial District, in the^{interestof justice.}

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thbt^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to direct} the Respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the representation^{dt.2810512015of the} Petitioner by taking into consideration of the 2nd Respondent letter^{dt.2411212014,} during pendency of writ^petition. Otherwise the Petitioner will^{be put to irreparable} loss and injury.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI B.SRINARAYANA, SC^FORHPCL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI K.VENUMADHAV

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE JUSTICE^{MOUSIIUMTBHATTACHARYA'}

¶25

WRIT PETITI^{oN No.2126I of2023}

¶26

Sri K.Jagadishwar^{Reddy,learned counsel for the pelitioners'} Sri B.Srinarayana,^{learned counsel for the respondent Nos'2 and 3'} Sri K.Venumadhav,^{learnedcounselfor t}te respondent Nos'4 and 5'}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The writ petition^{deserves to be dismissed for the following} reasons.

¶29

It is clear^{from the submissions made on behalfof the} petitioners and^{the respondent Nos'4and 5 (private respondents)that} the dispute^{brought to the Court is purely in the realm of a private} dispute.

¶30

The petitioners^{and the respondentNos'4 and 5 claim to be the} legal heirs^{of their respective fathers who were partnersof a ltrm} running a^{petrol bunk/ retail outlet' The petitioners claim to be the} owners of^{tlte 25%o shares in the partnershiphrm' It is undisputed} that the fathers^{of respondent Nos.4 and 5, respectiveiyown the75%o} shares of^the PartnershiP^firm'

¶31

As stated^{above, the disputeis between the petitioners and the} private respondent^{Nos'4and 5'The petitionersseek directions on} the respondent^{Nos.2 and 3/HindustanPetroleum CorporationLtd'} (I{PCL) to stop^{suppiy petroleumproducts to the retail outleton the} ground that the^{dealership agreement has expired'}

¶32

¶33

¶34

W.P.No.27261 of 2023 MB,J

¶35

The very nature of the relief of the submissions made before^the Court leaves little doubt that the petitioners are seeking^{to espousea} personal cause of action against the private respondents which have nothing to do with the infraction of the^petitioners' right^granted under Part III of the Constitution of India to^{make the caseamenable} under Article 226 of t}:re Constitution of India.

¶36

If the competing facts are to be seen, the^private respondents have been successfully running the^petrol bunk since^{1971 through} their fathers and hold 7 SVo of th,e shares in the lirm running the^petrol bunk. The petitioners appear to be recalcitrant^parties who refused to enter into partnership in accordance with the Policy Guidelines^for Reconstitution of Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO Dealerships 20la ('Reconstitution Guidelines) The Reconstitution Guidelines are mentioned in the reply given by the HPCL to the representation^given by the petitioner on 28.05.2015. HPCL replied to the representation by way of a letter dated 13.09.2023 clearly stating that Clause H(7) of the Reconstitution Guidelines provides that where one or more of the nominee(s)/legal heir(s) of the deceased partner have not^given their consent within the specihed period of 30 days, another 30 days shall be given to the nominee(s)/ iegal heir(s) for giving their willingness to join the deaiership faiiing which the non-responding nominee(s)/legal heir(s) of the deceased partner shall be treated as unwilling to be inducted in the dealership and the OMC shall be at liberff to approve I \

I I

) I

W.P.No.27261^{of 2023} MB'J

¶41

reconstitution^{of the dea'lershipwith the willingnominee(s)/legal} heir(s).

¶42

7 . In the^{presentcase, it is undisputed that the petitioners did not} convey their^{willingnessto be inductedas partners in their capacityas} legal heirs of^{the deceasedpartners' On the other hand' the private} respondent Nos.4^{and 5expressed their willingness and the} partnership is now^{in the process of being reconstitutedon the} willingness expressed^{by the respondent Nos'4 and 5'}

¶43

It is evident that^{the petitionerswant intervention of the Court} to scupper the^{reconstitutionof the dealership with the private} respondents.^{The petitioners cannot be permittedto interferewith the} business of^{the dealershiphavingfailedto expresstheir willingnessto} join the dealership within^{the stipulatedtime frame'}

¶44

¶45

g. Further,^{the petitioners' representation was disposedof by the} HPCL by^{letter datedl3.Og '2023 in terms of an interimorderpassed} by a Co-ordinate^{Bench on 08'08'2023'Therefore'the reply dated} 13.Og.2O23^{constitutes a new and fresh cause of action for the} petitioner since it^{fully answers the petitioners' grievalceraised in the} representation^{dated 28.05.20 1 5'}

¶46

TheWritCourtisnottheforumforadjudicatingdisputeswhich are purely private in^{nature or speculativedisputeswhere the}

¶47

¶48

¶49

W.P.No.27261 of 2023 MB,J

¶50

petitioners have themselves been dehcient in terms of taking appropriate action to an opportunity^given by the Oil Company.

¶51

W.P.No.21261 of 2023, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs

¶52

SD/. L.LAKSHMI ABU ASSISTANT REGI

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 9ne^{CC to SRI K.JAGAD]qHWARRED_DY_} Advocate tOpUCl ?. 9n"^{CC ro SRt B.SR|NARAYANA,} SC ron uidi tOiuCi^-' 3. One CC to SRI K.VENUMADHAV, Advocate fOp.Ct 4. Two CD Two CD CD Copies

¶57

Two CD Two CD CD Copies

PSK.

PSK \w

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411212024

ORDER

WP.No.21261 of 2A2g

1 rr E SI4 r4r
t o
1 I 0EI
2U{
C)
.t-A
g-O *
oFspa TCt<br>

¶65

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶66

6 W
til tl

Badam Rajender v. Union of India (Deleted)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badam Rajender v. Union of India (Deleted)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. R.N. Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Dinesh Soni Vs Reserve Bank Of India

Talla Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

M. Subba Rao, Vs The Union of India

Saroj Rajendra Kumar Mangla Vs Union of India

Proprietor, M/S. Shiva Stone Crushers, Karimangar Dist Vs Prl Secy, Mines and Geology Dept, Hyderabad and 5 Others