A private entity, not under pervasive government control, does not qualify as 'State' under Article 12, making a writ petition against it not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

B. Saraf, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the termination order dated December 28, 2021 passed by Nayara Energy Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.3’) based on the Lab Testing Report dated August 21, 2021. Petitioners have further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents no.1 and 2 to make enquiry on the complaint of the petitioners dated January 31, 2022 and reminder dated March 4, 2022.

FACTS

2. Factual matrix giving rise to the instant writ petition is delineated below:

a. Petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm, registered via partnership deed dated October 2, 2018 between Smt. Sangeeta Pathak (one of the partners of the partnership firm) and Smt. Sonam Singhal (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner no.2’), created for the purpose of carrying on business of sale of petroleum products (oil), grease, distilled water among other products.

b. Nayara Energy Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, originally known as Essar Oil Limited, has acquired authorization from Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.1’) to distribute franchise for sale and purchase of essential commodities like petroleum and diesel products to private individuals/firms such as the petitioner no.1.

c. Petitioner no.1 made an application for retail outlets of petroleum and diesel products and consequently respondent no.3 issued letter of appointment dated November 5, 2019 to the petitioner no.1 for sale of Motor Speed Petrol and High Speed Diesel lubes at a retail outlet.

d. In pursuance of aforesaid letter of appointment, a franchise agreement dated January 6, 2020 was executed between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 for the supply of Petrol and High-Speed Diesel lubes to the retail outlet of petitioner no.1, situated at Khasra No.232 Village Narsaina, Tehsil Sayana, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh.

e. On August 18, 2021, officials of respondent no.3 made a visit to the said retail outlet of petitioner no.1 for conducting inspection and collection of samples of products from the retail outlet. The samples of such products were sent to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BPCL’), Quality Assurance Laboratory, Bijwasan, New Delhi for further examination on August 18, 2021. Out of the drawn samples, BPCL prepared a report dated August 21, 2021 wherein several anomalies were pointed out in the same and it was communicated to respondent no.3 that the sent samples has failed to meet the required specifications.

f. On the basis of the aforesaid test report, the respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice dated August 26, 2021 to the petitioner no.1 directing it to explain the same within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice as to why the franchise agreement dated January 6, 2020 should not be terminated on account of various abnormalities found in the aforesaid report that tantamounted to violation of the terms and conditions of the franchise agreement dated January 6, 2020.

g. The petitioner no.1 replied in detail to the aforesaid show cause notice on September 9, 2021 wherein it has been stated that in the sample of products drawn from the outlet amongst which there were two major anomalies (a) discrepancy in delivery of petrol as well as diesel by nozzle regarding which a complaint was made to the visiting officer of the respondent company on August 6, 2021 which was never redressed by the respondent company and (b) the collected samples were unendorsed with seal numbers hence it created a dou