JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) whereby respondent has terminated her LPG dealership and order dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure P-9) whereby respondent has dismissed her appeal.

2. The petitioner contends that she was granted LPG distributorship in the year 2016 and a bilateral agreement in that regard was executed. After a period of five years, a show cause notice was issued to her on the ground that the lease deed which she had executed was not in accordance with law, apart from other allegations against her on the basis of a complaint from a person who had enmity with her. The impugned order of termination has been passed after a period of six years of the execution of the agreement. The respondent- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had not executed contract on the basis of few 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2024 23:56:35 :::

documents including lease deed whereas it conducted intensive exercise of scrutiny of documents and field verification. Now after a period of six years when she has invested a lot of money and altered her position to her disadvantage, the respondent has terminated the contract. As per brochure which laid down the terms and conditions, there is a period of limitation of 30 days for receiving and entertaining a complaint whereas in the present case a complaint was filed after a period of five years which has been entertained in violation of the aforesaid terms and conditions of the brochure. The respondent conducted physical verification and land was duly identified in the verification, thus, termination of agreement was unjust and unfair.

3. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate submits that respondent received complaint through Prime Minister’s office. The complaint was scrutinized and it was found that petitioner had submitted two sets of lease deeds with respect to godown as well as showroom. There were more than one owners of the land as well as more than one lessee. The land disclosed in the application form was at variance with registered lease deed. In the registered lease deed, submitted at the time of field verification, addition of khasra numbers was made, though, total land offered remained same. As there were more than one owners as well as lessee(s) of the offered land, the question of NOC from co-owners as well as co-lessee(s) was bound to arise. These questions could not be examined at the time of physical verification. The mistake was not minor which on being pointed out could be ignored and variance in offered land is not a curable defect.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Clause 21 of the brochure provides that if any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith is found incorrect or false, 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2024 23:56:36 :::

the application/candidature may be rejected without assigning any reason. The respondent accepted candidature of the petitioner and terminated contract after expiry of almost 06 years. Clause 21 of the brochure could not be invoked after execution of contract.

6. Clause 9.3 of the Letter of Intent provided that if any statement made in the application or in the documents at any stage is found to have been suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false affecting eligibility, the LOI shall be withdrawn without assigning any reason. Clause 9.3 of the Letter of Intent dated 24.12.2021 is reproduced as below :

“If any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by you at any stage is found to have been suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false affecting eligibility, then the LOI is liable to be withdrawn without assigning any reason and in case you have been appointed as a distributor, the distributorship is liab