The court affirmed that administrators can decide on dealership terminations without needing the same officer to issue the final decision, provided that natural justice is maintained.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14459 of 2019 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. For convenience of reference, the parties are hereinafter referred to in this judgment as they are referred to in the writ petition.

2. The petitioners are partners of M/s. K.Jamal Kutty Hajee and Son, a petroleum outlet in Malappuram district, under the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (‘BPCL’ for short). The petroleum outlet was initially started in 1940’s by the grandfather of the petitioners. The present partnership firm was formed in the year 1980. Ext.P1 is the acknowledgement of registration of the firm dated 15.01.1980. The licence for operating the petroleum outlet is granted to the firm by the BPCL initially for five years in the year 1980, and it was renewed from time to time. Ext.P2 is a copy of the agreement dated 07.08.2009, and Ext.P3 is a copy of the agreement dated 14.08.2014 executed between the parties.

2.1. The dispensing unit in the outlet is supplied, erected and maintained by BPCL. Servicing of the dispensing unit is done by the employees of the BPCL. According to the petitioners, the defects, if any, regarding the dispensing unit are to be reported to the company and the petitioners or their employees have no role in the service and maintenance of the dispensing unit.

2.2. The petitioners plead that after an inspection conducted by the Quality Control Cell (QCC) of BPCL on 25.09.2014, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2014 was issued to the petitioners' firm seeking explanation for the alleged two irregularities namely, (a) W & M seal was found broken/tampered in Zine SR NO JXL & T 6192 on HSD, and (b) Additional components /non-standard fittings were found in keypad of Z-Line L & T SR No.JXL & T 6192. The petitioners submitted their explanation as per the letter dated 03.11.2014, specifically contending that there are no deliberate laches on their part and that the problems, if any, would have been caused due to the oldness of the pump, voltage variation and continuous delivery. It was also pointed out that the defects pointed out earlier were rectified by the contractors of BPCL itself. Thereafter, Ext.P4 notice of hearing was issued to the petitioners on 04.03.2015, asking them to appear for a personal hearing at the Chennai office of BPCL on 11.03.2015. The petitioners appeared before the 2^nd respondent on the said date and offered their explanation. Though the hearing was conducted by the 2^nd respondent on 11.03.2015, no further steps were taken thereafter, and therefore, the petitioners were under the impression that the proceedings were dropped.

2.3. The petitioners state that on 23.05.2019, the petitioners were served with Ext.P6 notice dated 21.05.2019 issued by the 3^rd respondent stating that the dealership agreement has been terminated with immediate effect and representatives of the company will be taking over the retail outlet at 11.00 a.m on 28.05.2019. According to the petitioners, they have not violated any of the conditions in the agreement, and the intention on the part of the 3^rd respondent in terminating the agreement is only to give the licence to another person of their choice. The belated attempt on the part of the 3^rd respondent to terminate the agreement is made after conducting an interview for appointing an adhoc licensee on 21.05.2019. Evidencing the s