The respondent Corporation should not act on personal disputes and should only consider changes in the distributorship constitution if officially intimated by the petitioner in accordance with its policy.

JUDGMENT :

Civil Application No. 3040/2020 :—

1. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates representing the respective sides on the Civil Application.

2. By this Civil Application, the applicant who is a retired engineer and who has occupied a high position in an organization, seeks to intervene in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, who is the younger biological brother of the applicant. The petition is filed for challenging the cancellation of the LOI issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. Extensive submissions have been canvassed by the applicant and the original petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman. The learned counsel for the respondent/Petroleum Corporation has assisted the Court with the documents and the guidelines of the Corporation in relation to allotment of LPG distributorship, to the extent of the Civil Application. Considering the issue before us, we are not required to advert to the entire submissions of the applicant and the original petitioner.

4. The grievance of the applicant is that he had entered to certain financial transactions with the petitioner. Based on the same, a partnership agreement was arrived at on 19-10-2017 and an internal arrangement between the applicant and the petitioner was made. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into a second agreement with the applicant on 18-4-2019. Certain additions were made in the said agreement and both decided to apply to the respondent Corporation under clause 2.3 of the Reconstitution Guidelines of November, 2018. It is undisputed that such an application was not officially filed before the respondent Corporation. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner had applied in his individual capacity pursuant to the advertisement dated 1-9-2017, for a location which was reserved for an ex-serviceman.

5. The grievance of the applicant is that the petitioner entered into another agreement for setting up a partnership firm on 8-6-2019 in which, he ousted the applicant and inducted his wife as a proposed partner.

6. With the above developments, the applicant lodged a complaint to the Chief Area Manager of the respondent Corporation on 24-8-2019 through an advocate. With his formal complaint, the respondent Corporation issued the show cause notice dated 19-11-2019 calling for an explanation from the petitioner. By reply dated 26-11-2019, the petitioner admitted that his wife was inducted as a partner and that the petitioner’s brother was raising a dispute about the financial transactions between them. He alleged that the applicant had taken undue advantage of the petitioner, who is educated only upto 10th standard, by making him sign on the partnership agreements. He has been cheated by his brother. It is in this backdrop that the impugned order dated 15-1-2020 canceling the LOI dated 31-12-2018, was issued. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before us.

7. We find from the extensive submissions of the learned counsel that the petitioner has not formally applied to the respondent Corporation for inducting his wife into a partnership firm under clause 2.3 of the Reconstitution Guidelines dated 1-11-2018. Officially, the respondent Corporation has not received any application from the petitioner, after he was granted the LOI, that he wanted to transform his application as an individual/ex-serviceman into a partnership firm. The spat between the petitioner and the applicant is at a personal level. Per contra, the grievance of the petitioner against the cancellation of his LOI is put forth through a writ petition by which, he seeks redressal. A private dispute between the two which has not been officially translated into a change of entity for the LPG distributorship, in our view, would not warrant the interjection of the applicant in the writ proceedings. The Civil Application filed by the applicant seeking intervention is, therefore, rejected.

Writ Petition No. 1445/2020 :—

8. Since extensive submissions were canvassed by the petitioner and the respo