Disposed¶11

Shalini Agarwal v. Union of India

Telangana HC3 Jan 2025WP/121/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, W.P.No.121 of 2025 (Justice T. Vinod Kumar): maintainability of an Article 226 writ petition versus an arbitration clause - BPCL termination letter dt.18.11.2024 of dealership agreement dt.13.06.2022 (M/s. Shaanvi Filling Station, Nagole, Medchal-Malkajgiri); Clause 19 sole-arbitrator/SCOPE forum/Hyderabad seat; writ not maintainable absent peculiar, extraordinary and special circumstances; petitioner relegated to contractual/arbitral remedies; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None substantive; the writ petition is disposed of at admission stage relegating the petitioner to the contractual remedies under Clause 19 of the agreement dt.13.06.2022, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications stand closed. ¶11

Shalini Agarwal Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 challenging the termination letter dt.18.11.2024 terminating the dealership agreement dt.13.06.2022 is maintainable when the agreement itself provides for a dispute resolution mechanism (Clause 19: arbitration by a sole arbitrator).

¶5

Court's answer

Once an agreement entered into between the parties provides for a dispute resolution mechanism, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained, unless peculiar, extraordinary and special circumstances are shown (relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj. Mahendra Pal and M. Thanikachalam v. Maduranthakam Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society).

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Since the agreement dt.13.06.2022 provides a dispute resolution mechanism and no peculiar/extraordinary circumstances are shown to exist for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the petitioner along with Respondent No.3 must work out their remedies under the agreement; the petitioner is relegated to the remedies provided under Clause 19 thereof, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226) by the dealer of M/s. Shaanvi Filling Station (Bharat Petroleum Corporation retail outlet at Nagole/Uppal Bhagath Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District) challenging Respondent No.2 BPCL's termination letter dt.18.11.2024 terminating the dealership/licence agreement dt.13.06.2022 granted jointly to the petitioner and Respondent No.3 for a Company Owned Dealer Operated Outlet of Motor Spirit/HSD, on the ground of alleged suppression of details by Respondent No.3 while obtaining the dealership. Clause 19 of the agreement provides for arbitration (sole arbitrator; SCOPE forum of Arbitration Rules; seat at Hyderabad; English language). Held, relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj. Mahendra Pal and M. Thanikachalam v. Maduranthakam Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society: where an agreement provides for dispute resolution, a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be maintained unless peculiar, extraordinary and special circumstances are shown; no such circumstances having been shown, the petitioner is relegated to the remedies under Clause 19. Writ petition disposed of at admission stage (notice to unofficial Respondent No.3 held unnecessary) without expressing opinion on merits; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE S1 TELANGANA AT HYDE #JiDOF (special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

'#,'jLH,=.Iil'S?^?$Yf E^i.IEtr"

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITIONNO:12 10F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

,3ijj}r,affi ffi^-#f rya%i?!.ffi^,.ifl ?!f^{,,,,#i,1*T,t"iE,{BriB;}

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETIT]ONER

¶11

$!i;i lti6$lii Rep. by its Ministry of petroteum and Naturat Gases, New

¶12

2 FjtHiErrlSH":;'8T1',U'^{Hll:i,,fJI ?',H,i*:,fl} tl,,l:.,{i3y;[:xT"

¶13

3 S:3,",i?i,1:,il:9,fl iLB.,iifl ]ilfi ,gltlfu if "d"?SJ,",f u?ff ;S:..,,tia?

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therev pteased to issue a writ order or direction ,". ,rn,J,ltln;:J;lr:::[r]:l_:: of mandamus decraring the action of the respondent no.2 issuing the termination letter dt.1 Bl 1 1 t2024 termi petitioneruno,.",pona"nlij:,:T::;':T,:il:ffi

¶16

,:::?,,:r::,"?,,,i",:; naturar justice against the set ed principres of raw and arso viorative of Articres 14, 19 and 21 0f the constitution of rndia and consequenry set aside the termination lettet dt.1 Bt 1 1 12024 terml by the respondent no 2 ""A}ffi"';#'lj,:lTffiH.l#:?:::r""",T; Filling Station, Bharat petroleum Corporation, at plot No.174, Sy.No.1_40,2g2 to 368, 369(part), 370 to 323,374(part), 375 to 3Bz, 39s to 401,4s4,456 to 4s9,

¶17

505(Part), 510 to 564, besides Shilparamam, Opp. Nagole Metro Pillar No.810, Uppal Bhagath Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-500039, Telangana State as per the Dealership Agreemenl dt.13lOGl2O22.

¶18

tA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To suspend the operation of the termination letter dt.1811112022 issued by Respondent No.2 terminating the dealership agreernent dt.1310612022 with the petitioner and respondent no.3 and direct the respondent no.2 handover the possession of the M/s.Shaanvi Filling Station, Bharat Petroleum Corporation at Plot No.174, Sy.No.1-40,282 to 368, 369(Part),370 to 373, 374(Part),375 to 387, 395 to 401, 454,456 to 459, 505(Part), 510 to 564, besides Shilparamam, Opp. Nagole Metro Pillar No.810, Uppal Bhagath Village, Uppal Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District-500039, Telangana State and permit the petitioner to run the said outlet in the name of M/s.Shaanvi Filling Station, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, at Plot No.'174, Sy.No.1-40,282 lo 368, 369(Part), 370 to 373, 374(Part), 3751o387,395 to 401, 454,456 to 459, 505(Part), 510 to 564, besides Shilparamam, Opp. Nagole Metro Pillar No.B10, Uppal Bhagath Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District-500039, Telangana State pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. PRATAP REDOY APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SRI S. RAM REDOY

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.l: SRI K. ARAVIND, SC

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI D. NARENOAR NAIK, SC

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶25

W.P.No.121 of 2o25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri C.Pratap Reddy, Iearned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K.Aravind, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri D.Narendar Naik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶28

Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal of this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unoffrcial respondent No.3 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶29

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that under an agreement, dt.13.O6.2O22, entered into with the 2od respondent, a license was granted in favour of the petitioner along with the 3'd respondent to run Company Owned Dealer Operated Outlet of Motor Spirit and/or HSD or other petroleum products; and that the 2.d respondent by the impugned proceeding, dt.la.LI.2O24, had terminated the aforesaid dealership agreement entered into by the petitioner along with the 3.d respondent on the ground that the 3.d respondent while entering

¶30

¶31

¶32

lnto the agreement had resorted to suppression and thereby committed breach of the terms of the license agreement.

¶33

It is the further case of the petitioner that the dealership agreement has been terminated solely on the ground of the 3d respondent not disclosing the complete details while obtaining dealership, which action on the part of the 2od respondent it is contended as highly iliegat, arbitrary a-,,d in violation of fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on business.

¶34

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on bchalf of the 2nd respondent by drawing attention of this Court to Clause 19 of the license agreement, dt.I3.O6.2O22. would submit that since, the agreement provides for Dispute Resolution Mechanism, the nelit inner -^:-.^{^:-} , rr rr re present Wnt petition.

¶35

6 I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

¶36

7 Admittedly, the License Agreement, dt.13.C,6.2022, entered into by the petitioner and the 3d respondent with the 2nd respondent provides for a Dispute Resolution Mechanism, which reads as under:

¶37

"19. An! dispute or dilference uthatsoeuer aising out of or in connection uith this Agreenont inctuding ang questiort regarding its exi-stence, ualiditlt, construction interpretatiory application, meaning, scope' operation or effect of this contract or termination thereof shatt be refened to and finattg resolued. through arbitration as per the procedure mentioned herein belou:

¶38

¶39

) )

¶40

(a) The dispute or difference shall, in any euent, be referred onlA to a SoLe Arbitrator.

¶41

@^{fhe appointment} and arbitration proceedings shau be conducted in acardance with SCOpE forum of Arbitration Rules for the time being in force of as amended. from time to time.

¶42

¶43

(d) Ttre proceedings shall be condtcted in English langaage.

¶44

(e) The cost of tLLe proceedings shall be eEnuA bome bA the parties, unless otFeruise directed by th.e Sol.e Arbitrator..

¶45

It is settled position of law that once an agreement entered

¶46

into between the parties provides for a dispute resolution, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained, unless, if peculiar, extraordinary and special circumstances are shown (See: State o.f Hinachal pradesh u. Rajo. Mahend.ra Pd.l q.nd Orsr, and M. Thanlkachalam and Ors. us. Maduranthakann Agricultural Producers Co-operatiue Marketing Societg qnd Ors2|..

¶47

Since, in the facts of the case, the agreement dt.13.06.2022, provides of a dispute resolution mechanism, and as no peculiar/extraordinary circumstances are shown to exist for this Court to exercise extraordinar5r jurisdiction under Article 226 of tlrre Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that the petitioner along with the 3.d respondent, who had join tly entered into an

¶48

'^{arn 1999sc rz86}

¶49

'^{uanufrru/o::O/ZOOo}

¶50

¶51

agreement with the 2"d respondent, have to work out their remedies provided under the aforesaid agreement

¶52

In vier,r'of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedies as provided under the agreement, dL-13.O6.2O22, urrCe Clause 19 thereof.

¶53

1 1. Subject to the above observation, the Writ petition is

¶54

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶55

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these rvrit petitions shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/-L. LAKSHMI BABU ASS NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

ECTIO},I OFFiCER

To,

The_Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Union of lndia, New Delhi _ 1 10001 .

¶61

Bharat Petroleum corporation Limited, Hyderabad Retail renitory, Reliance f|1ryqefrr,2nd^{Ftoor, 8-2-Uan, Road Nri.tt, Banjara Hiils, Hyddiabad_} 500034.

¶62