Writ petitions can challenge notices issued with predetermined outcomes, emphasizing the need for fair inquiry and consideration of responses before adverse actions.

Judgment :

A. ABHISHEK REDDY ,J.

Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s) :

(a) For quashing the Show Cause Notice cum Suspension Order dated 06.09.2024 issued by the Chief General Manager cum Bihar State Incharge, Patna whereby and whereunder petitioner's distributorship of LPG Gas Agency suspended with immediate effect only on the basis of a false complaint dated 13.03.2024 given by a so called partner of the petitioner and he alleged that petitioner and his wife arbitrarily removed the complainant from the partnership without giving any share in the profit and without reconciling the accounts. Because it is prejudging the issue.

(b) For issuance of writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for commanding the respondents to keep the impugned show cause dated 06.09.2024 in abeyance till the final decision is taken by the competent civil court in T.S. No. 123/102 of 2024 which is pending before the Civil Court, Begusarai.

(c) The petitioner further prays for any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner is entitled to in the fact and circumstances in the case.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had received the letter of intent from the Respondent-Corporation for setting up LPG Dealership. Learned counsel has stated that subsequently the petitioner had entered into a partnership deed with one Niranjan Prasad Singh on 15.04.2013 and thereafter the petitioner on coming to know that the petitioner is obligated to take prior permission from the oil company has cancelled the partnership deed on 15.06.2013. That the dealership agreement was entered between the Respondent-Corporation and the petitioner and his wife as a co-owner on 24.07.2013 and he has being operating the dealership without any complaint. That till the issuance of notice dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P/2) there was absolutely no complaint from any quarters and the Respondent-Authority was satisfied with the working of the petitioner. That for the first time on 14.05.2024 based on a complaint given by the said Niranjan Prasad Singh the authorities have issued a notice with regard to the complaint made by Niranjan Prasad Singh and seeking his explanation. The petitioner had given a detailed explanation on 20.05.2024 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter the authorities have issued the impugned show cause notice whereby the distributorship of the petitioner was suspended. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that besides suspending the distributorship of the petitioner, the consumers of the petitioner were also diverted to other dealerships. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though the notice dated 20.05.2024 appears to be innocuous the authorities have made up their mind and suspended the license of the distributorship without there being any material on record. The issuance of the show cause notice was empty formality as the decision had already been taken by the authorities and the same is evident from the reading of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. That without adverting to the explanation submitted to the earlier show cause notice the authorities have issued the impugned notice dated 20.05.2024. That absolutely no enquiry has been conducted by the authority concerned or an opportunity provided to the petitioner to submit his side of his story before the order of suspension. At no point of time the said Nirajan Prasad Singh had any role to play in the earning of the distributorship or sharing of the profits as the partnership agreement was cancelled way back in the year 2013 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his case:

(1) (2006) 12 SCC 33 (M/s Siemens Ltd. Vrs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

(2) (1987) 4 SCC 431 (K.I. Shephard & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors.)

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present Writ Petition. Le