SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1514

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Mr.Mohd.Muzaffar Hussain - Appellant
Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17884 of 2025
Decided On : 14-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Manu
For the Respondent: T Jayant Jaisoorya

The court upheld the legality of dealership termination based on confirmed tampering evidence, affirming procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles, invalidating the petitioner's claims of bias.

Headnote:(A) Dealership Agreement - Clauses regarding tampering and termination - The petitioners argue their dealership was unlawfully terminated following allegations of tampering based on an audit report which they contest as fabricated. Court held that proper procedures were followed, and the evidence provided by the audit report was conclusive. (Paras 1.1-1.8)

(B) Natural Justice - Court emphasized that principles of natural justice must be adhered to in decision-making, yet found no biases or procedural violations in the process followed by the respondents. (Para 10)

(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Court reaffirmed that while alternative remedies exist, writ jurisdiction is appropriate where violations of natural justice or substantive illegality are present. (Paras 6 and 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners maintained a petrol dealership under Indian Oil Corporation, alleging harassment by IOCL officials and disputing the legitimacy of a tampering claim that led to termination of their dealership. (Paras 1.1, 1.2, and 1.9)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners' dealership termination was based on evidence from a compliant audit report, validating IOCL's actions as legally sound. (Paras 10.3 and 14)

Issues: The court addressed the validity of evidence supporting the termination, the adherence to natural justice principles, and the appropriateness of the writ jurisdiction given the circumstances. (Paras 4.1, 10.1, and 10.2)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that both procedural fairness was maintained and allegations of bias were without substantiation, allowing the use of the audit report as a legitimate basis for termination. (Paras 10 and 10.2)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature and issues of the dealership agreement. (Para 1)
2. respondents' justifications for dealership termination. (Para 2)
3. arguments for maintainability of writ petition. (Para 3 , 4)
4. addressing the counter-affidavit of the respondents. (Para 5)
5. scope of writ jurisdiction and applicable legal standards. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
6. assessment of evidence and procedural fairness. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
7. dispute resolution mechanisms under the dealership agreement. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
8. conclusion of the writ petition. (Para 16)

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

The case of the petitioners, precisely, as per the writ affidavit, is that they hold a Dealership Agreement with the 1st respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, and are running a petroleum retail outlet under the name and style of M/s. Vimal Filling Station, on land measuring 1111.11 square yards in Survey Nos. 5A and 6/A of Dharur Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District. The Dealership was initially granted to the Smt. Parvathamma, who is the grandmother of the 2nd petitioner, and later reconstituted on 27.01.2009, in favor ofSmt. Vimala Bai, who is the daughter of Smt. Parvathamma. Following the demise of Smt. Vimala Bai on 05.08.2020, the dealership was transferred to her son, the present petitioner, under a fresh Dealership Agreement executed on 22.12.2020, valid for fifteen years, i.e., until 21.12.2035. The retail outlethad functioned smoothly since its inception on 30.06.2012, with no complaints ever recorded by customers, the Weights and Measures Department, or IOCL regarding adulteration or short.

1.1 The petitioner alleges that from 2022 onwards, IOCL officials, particularly Mr. Abhishek Choudhary, then Chief Manager (now Deputy General Manager, RS, Secunderabad Division), and Mr. B. Erranna, Manager, began harassing him and attempted to force a reconstitution of the dealership with a third party. His father, Mr. Abid Hussain Agarwal, lodged a complaint against these officials with IOCL’s Vigilance Department (Southern Region), and a letter from the DGM (Vigilance) acknowledging the complaint was received. The petitioner asserts that Mr. Choudhary, motivated by vengeance over this complaint, later became part of the personal hearing committee and was instrumental in terminating the dealership out of bias.

1.2 The sequence of disputed events began on 16.11.2023, when the GVR service technicians—authorized agents of IOCL—visited the retail outlet to break the seals on Dispensing Unit (DU) Serial No. 01807001363 (Make:GVR) for calibration and annual stamping in the presence of the Assistant Legal Metrology Officer (ALMO), Vikarabad, and the retail outlet staff. A Panchanama was subsequently drawn up on 24.01.2024, recording that the Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel (HSD) stock variation was within permissible limits and that the 5-liter measure test showed no deviation. The Panchanama further noted that samples of MS (two samples) and HSD (one sample) were collected and retained by the dealer for verification. The petitioner emphasizes that the Weights and Measures Department seals on the Metering and Totalizer Units were intact on 16.11.2023, and that the GVR technician himself broke the seals during calibration, thereby disproving any allegation of tampering by the dealer.

1.3 Despite these observations, IOCL issued a Show Cause Notice dated 28.08.2024, which, according to the petitioner, was invalid because it referred to the Dealership Agreement of 2012, long since replaced by the current agreement of 22.12.2020. The petitioner responded, denying any tampering or irregularity and asserting that he was not given a fair hearing. Nevertheless, IOCL proceeded to rely on an allegedly fabricated GVR TACC Laboratory Report dated 19.07.2024, which claimed that the CPU cards from the DU showed soldering rework on resistors R201 and R202, as well as on the JTAG connector pins 17 and 19, and on the FRAM IC and EEPROM 17th pin on the rear side of the card. The pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top