Policy decisions regarding the transfer of LPG customers must respect distributor rights and judicial precedents, emphasizing judicial restraint unless legal violations are evident.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The petitioner is the distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (in short, “LPG”), who is distributing cylinders of respondent, oil marketing companies to the customers. The petitioner challenges the circular dated 21st February, 2025 on marketing restructuring and customer transfer policy issued by three leading Oil Marking Companies, namely, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short, “IOCL”), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short, “BPCL”) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short, “HPCL”).

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that on the earlier occasion, the oil marketing companies have issued circular under the same nomenclature on 4^th January, 2018 and 9^th January, 2018 respectively regarding the policy of customer transfer from one distributor to another distributor. The said policy was under challenge initially before the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ petition No.8753 of 2018 [Mrs. Shailaja R. Khanvilkar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed the said circular dated 4th January, 2018 issued by the oil marketing companies against which oil marketing companies proceeded to the Hon’ble Apex Court through SLP. The Hon’ble Apex Court had not granted any stay against the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and had admitted for hearing under civil appeal.

3. The circular dated 9^th January, 2018 was also under challenge before this Court in writ petition being WPA 20391 of 2023 [M/s. CLS Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India], wherein this Court vide judgment dated 20^th February, 2025 has directed the said circulars to be unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational and also directed the concerned oil marketing companies to return the customers in favour of the petitioner therein.

4. The oil marketing companies/respondent authority has approached the Hon’ble Division Bench against the said order, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench in MAT 335 of 2025 [Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. CLS Ltd. & Anr.] dismissed the said appeal and did not interfere with the observations of this Court. A review application was filed by the oil marketing companies against the said order and judgment but the said review application was also not entertained by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

5. At this juncture, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned policy dated 21^st February, 2025 issued by the three leading oil marketing companies are the same policy of 2018 under new nomenclature. It is further contention of the petitioner that as the earlier circular of 2018 is under challenge and was quashed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, and as this could not obtain any order of stay from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the oil marketing companies have again issued new circular for the same purpose.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that this Court has already decided the issue that the policy for transferring the customers from one distributor to another distributor is unreasonable. Thus, the said new circular dated 21^st February, 2025 is required to be stayed.

7. The learned advocate for the petitioner further argued that the said new circular dated 21^st February, 2025 was also under challenge before the different High Courts, wherein the various High Courts had issued an order of stay. In one case, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court had passed an order in an appeal regarding the circular wherein the interim order was refused by the Le