JUDGMENT :

Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.

1. Judgement passed by Hon’ble Single Judge on 14.01.2022 in WPA 10713 of 2021 is brought under challenge in this appeal by respondents Oil Company.

2. A compendium of facts relevant for disposal of this appeal runs as follows :-

(a) Following due procedure under the brochure and guidelines agreement for LPG distributorship in favour of the respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) was executed between the competent authority of the present appellants and the respondent no. 1 on 29.01.1990.

(b) The respondent no. 1 allegedly entered into a partnership agreement with the private respondent no. 3 (Swati Rai) on 09.11.2016 whereby and whereunder the present respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) agreed to change the constitution of the proprietorship to a partnership by inducting present respondent no. 3 (Swati Rai) as his partner and by agreeing to retire from the partnership altogether after five years upon handing over the entire distributorship to respondent no. 3 (Swati Rai). On 9.11.2016 itself, present respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) also executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent no. 3 (Swati Rai) giving her, inter alia, the right to work, manage, control and supervise the management of the distributorship.

Aforesaid act of the present respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) was alleged to be violative of Clause 21 of the distributorship agreement.

(c) Such action of present respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) came to the knowledge of the competent authority of the Oil Company on the basis of a complaint made by present respondent no. 3 (Swati Rai) on 23.04.2018.

(d) On receipt of the aforesaid complaint a meeting was called by the competent authority of the appellants to ascertain the veracity of such complaint. In the said meeting the present respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) is alleged to have accepted the fact that he had entered into a partnership with respondent no. 3 (Swati Rai) and he also allegedly admitted to have executed a power of attorney in her favour.

(e) The gist of the aforesaid meeting as recorded by the competent authority of the appellants was issued vide communication of the appellants to present respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) on 09.05.2018.

(f) The present respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) responded to the communication of the appellants dated 09.05.2018 wherein he (respondent no. 1) stated that he is in the process of cancelling the agreement of partnership and undertook that he shall complete the process very soon. Thereafter respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) forwarded to the competent authority of the appellants a deed of cancellation of the partnership agreement bearing signature of respondent no. 3 (Swati Rai) dated 29.06.2018 and a deed of revocation of power of attorney dated 03.08.2018 executed in her (Swati Rai’s) favour on 09.11.2016.

(g) Owing to admitted violation of the terms of the distributorship agreement, respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) was issued with a show-cause notice dated 16.10.2018 which, inter alia, recorded that respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) had admitted the execution of the partnership agreement with respondent no. 3 (Swati Rai).

(h) Respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) replied to the show-cause notice on 19.12.2018 admitting the factum of creation of partnership, receipt of money from respondent no. 3 (Swati Rai), his intention to return the money to Swati Rai and further sought for condonation of the violation upon agreeing to pay requisite ratification fees as per new reconstitution policy which came into force during 2018.

(i) Clause 4.5 of detailed guidelines for reconstitution of LPG distributorship, 2018 authorises the competent authority of the appellants’ oil company to condone the violation committed by a dealer on payment of requisite ratification fees provided in Clause 4.5.1. On the basis of the show-cause reply of the respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner) dated 19.12.2018, the competent authority of the appellants accepted the ratifica