IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that termination of a distributorship must adhere to due process and contractual obligations, emphasizing the need for prior consent in partnership arrangements.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. S. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Domnic Fernandez, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing no behalf of respondent No. 3.

PRAYER:

2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under:

“......to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent impugned orders in terminating the petitioner’s distribution-ship, vide orders Ref.SAO/LEELA GAS, dated 27/06/2022, the same is not served on petitioner till today, though the impugned order indicates that the 1st respondent sent the impugned order by way of registered post with Acknowledgment Due and recently, the petitioner came to know about the orders passed by the 2nd respondent through Email only. The said orders passed on the ground, that the petitioner Gas Agency violated the Clause No. 21 and 23(c) (i) and 27(f) and (n) of L.P.G. Distribution ship agreement dt. 01/04/2006. Based on the false complaint and blackmail complaint dt:30/09/2020 filed by one person by name K.Prabhakar, without conducting proper inquiry and without issuing any notice to the said K.Prabhakar, who was joined as Managing partner to the petitioner’s Gas Agency at the instance of the 1st respondent corporation and the same was accepted and communicated to the 3rd respondent/District Collector to revoke the petitioner’s suspension of B-Form License of M/s. Leela Gas Agency vide letter dt.21/07/2010 and suppressed all these aspects, the said fact is proved from the explanation submitted by the petitioner herein dt. 16/07/2021, in response to the 1st respondent’s Show cause notice dt.03/06/2021 including the complaint dt.30/09/2020, without considering the said aspects, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned orders dt.27/06/2022, though the Show cause notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 is totally bad in law and nonest in the eye of law, is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner’s Gas Agency in question and further direct not to interfere with the business of the Petitioner’s Gas Agency without following due process of law and to pass.....”

PERUSED THE RECORD:

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is as under:

(a) The petitioner was granted dealership of the Gas Agency by the respondent Corporation under the SC Women Quota in the year 2006. In the year 2009, the petitioner Agency was due for payment of amount of Rs.9,00,750/- in view of the said lapse, the I.O.C. suspended the petitioner's B-Form License and communicated the same to the 3rd respondent.

(b) Thereafter, in order to clear the dues, the petitioner added a partner to the business and accordingly the petitioner submitted the proposals to the 1st respondent and the same was accepted by clearing all dues and by adding K.Prabhakar as a partner to the petitioner’s Gas Agency and the same was communicated to the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 21.07.2010 with a clear direction to restore the petitioner’s suspended B-Form license.

(c) However, the 1st respondent having colluded with the K.Prabhakar and his political influence, passed the impugned orders dated 27.06.2022 in a mechanical manner causing injustice to the petitioner’s category of allotment of Agency under SC Women Quota.

(d) Furthermore, the distributor-ship was issued in favour of the petitioner by I.O.C., Head office at Mumbai and assigned the Area Office at Secunderabad for State of Andhra Pradesh, executed by Senior Area Manager, in such an event, the 1st respondent is the competent authority to terminate the petitioner's Distributor-ship, but not the 2nd respondent. Also, contrary to the Show-Cause notice the 2nd respondent passe