DHARMASUT INDANE GAS AGENCYversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION

      C/SCA/2239/2024                              ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2239 of 2024

==========================================
               DHARMASUT INDANE GAS AGENCY
                             Versus
                INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR CHINMAY M
GANDHI(3979) AND MS BHOOMI PATEL for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIKITA C GANDHI(11570) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NISARG DESAI WITH NANDITA SUROLLIA WITH YASH MODI FOR
GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                           Date : 12/03/2026

                              ORAL ORDER


1.     Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Indian
Petroleum Act with the following prayers:-

(a)      This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(b)      This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
         any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
         mandamus holding and declaring that the impugned order of
         termination dated 01.02.2024 passed by the respondent
         authorities is illegal, against the settled proposition of law and
         in violation of principles of natural justice and be further
         pleased to quash and set aside the same.

(c)      Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this
         petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the
         execution, operation implementaion and operation of the


                                  Page 1 of 3
      C/SCA/2239/2024                                 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




         impugned order of termination dated 01.02.2024 passed by
         the respondent authorities.

(d)      Such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem
         just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the petitioner.

(e)      The costs of this petition be provided to the petitioner.



2.     Heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr.Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Nisarg
Desai, learned counsel for Gandhi Law Associates for the respondents
and perused the material on record.


3.     Mr.Mehta,        learned   senior    counsel   has    submitted          that
respondent – authorities issued the notice dated 05.09.2025
incorporating the clause 5, clause 6 and clause 27(j) of the
Distributorship Agreement dated 27.11.2025, for which the petitioner
has given explanation on 19.09.2023 and again on 02.12.2023. He
has submitted that on 08.01.2024, the respondent – authorities has
issued notice for personal hearing and, thereafter, on 01.02.2024, the
respondent – authorities passed an order and cancelled the
Dealership / Distributorship Agreement. He has also submitted that
while passing the order of cancellation of Distributorship Agreement,
the respondent – authorities has gone beyond the scope of show-
cause notice and considered other material as referred in the order
more particularly clause No.16 and 27(n) which has not been
mentioned in the show-cause notice and, therefore, it is clear that the
respondent – authorities have acted in arbitral manner and against
the settled principles of law and passed the order, which is not just
and proper.




                                    Page 2 of 3
         C/SCA/2239/2024                                                                 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




4.         It appears that the respondent has filed the afÏdavit-in-reply
against which afÏdavit-in-rejoinder is also filed. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and the contentions of the afÏdavit-in-
reply and the afÏdavit-in-rejoinder and the submissions canvassed by
learned counsel for the respective parties, I am of the opinion that if
the order is passed to cancel the Distributorship Agreement is in
violation           of      the        conditions             stipulated            in      the        Dealership              /
Distributorship Agreement then alternative remedy is provided in the
said agreement. However, without entering into merits of the matter, I
am of the opinion that let the petitioner may make fresh
representation before the respondent/s clarifying that while issuing
the show-cause notice and passing the order, the respondent has
gone beyond the scope of the notice and considered some other
material also. Therefore, let proper opportunity be given to the
petitioner to explain this eventuality as cropped up in the order and
after hearing the present petitioner, an appropriate order may be
passed by the respondent – authorities.


5.         The petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner
to make fresh representation before the respondent – authorities
within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of
the order. On receipt of the representation, the respondent –
authorities shall decide the same within a period of six weeks after
giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Direct service is
permitted.

                                                                     (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/03/2026 16:55:17




                                                         Page 3 of 3