IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.

IN THE MATTER OF WPA 25731 of 2024 Avijit Kr Modak Vs.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd For the Petitioners : Mr. Subir Sanyal, Adv., Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Asit Baran Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Ramesh Dhara, Adv., Mr. Somesh Kumar Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Sourajit Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Trijit Mitra, Adv.

For the respondent : Mr. M.S Yadav, Adv., Reserved on : 07.04.2025 Judgment on : 23.07.2025 Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. Father of the petitioner namely Dulal Kar Modak, since deceased through an agreement dated 15th June, 2004, was appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation limited (IOCL) as distributor for liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in Cylinder for households in the area of Khatra and adjoining areas within 15 KMs Radius in the District of Bankura.

2. Father of the petitioner started business under name and style M/s. Mina Indane at Netaji Road Khatra in the district Bankura as a sole proprietor. There are different disputes between the father of the petitioner and IOCL authorities consequent thereof several writ petitions were filed. Sometimes selling license of the father of petitioner was terminated and again it was revived by the order of this court, thereafter again it was terminated. However, said Dulal Kar Modak expired on September 15, 2016. In terms of Clause 27 (D) (I) of the distributorship agreement dated June 15, 2004 the agreement was terminated on the death of the sole dealer/distributor. Petitioner approached the authority with a prayer to renew the license in his name, being denied, the petitioner approached this court in a writ petition being WP No. 19811(W) of 2017. A co-ordinate Bench vide its order on January 30th, 2018 has allowed the writ petition and directed IOCL authority to appoint petition as LPG Distributor in the place of deceased father. Being aggrieved, IOCL preferred a mandamus appeal being FMA 1716 of 2018. Hon’ble Division Bench of this court vide its order dated 18.04.2024 disposed of the said mandamus appeal with directions as follows--

10. Be that as it may, no enquiry having been held against deceased respondent/writ petitioner during his lifetime, everything abated on his death when the oil company did not proceed to prove the change/changes. When everything has abated and the allegation as made has not been proved, no fault can be found in the application filed by the respondent/writ petitioner for his appointment/engagement as LPG distributor. He (respondent/writ petitioner) according to law or moral is not supposed to inherit the sin of his deceased father.

11. We do not affirm the order of Hon'ble Single Bench directing the appellants/oil company to give appointment/engagement to the petitioner within a specified time inasmuch as for giving an appointment/engagement the oil company is required to be satisfied about fulfilment of different norms set out by the company in its guidelines and the petitioner has to fulfil those norms and conditions specified in the guidelines. The company in such matter conduct itself in a transparent manner and the proposed distributor will know what the conditions and norms he has to fulfil.

12. Accordingly, we set aside the conclusion reached by Hon'ble Single Bench and allow this appeal directing the appellants/oil company reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of Clause 3.4 of the 2013 guidelines. It is made clear that the decision shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3. In pursuance to the directions, the respondent authority has given a hearing to the petitioner and passed the impugned reasoned order thereby petitioner’s prayer was turned down with observation that- “considering the facts and circumstances stated above, we regret to inform that your application for re-constitution dated

9th February 2016 is hereby rejected”

4. Hence this writ.

5. Mr. Subir Sanyal Learned Se