V.Rangadurai v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.Nos.40237, 40240 & 40243 of 2025 V.Rangadurai ... Petitioner Vs.
1.M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman, 3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, JB Tito Marg, New Delhi - 110 049.
2.The Chief Divisional Manager (Sales), Marketing Division, Indian Oil Bhavan, No.8/1079, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
3.R.Jaishree 4.S.Suganyadevi ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling or any other for the 2nd respondent letter dated 09.09.2025 is quash as same as a illegal. Page No.1 of 8
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajendraprasad For Respondents : Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan Standing Counsel [R1 & R2] Notice dispensed with [R3 & R4] *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the letter of the 2nd respondent dated 09.09.2025.
2. Since no adverse order has been passed against the respondents 3 and 4, notice to the respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with.
3. Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. In view of the consent expressed by the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
4. The case of the petitioner is that one Sanjeevi, who is the father of the respondents 3 and 4 obtained a retail outlet license in the name and style of M/s.Lakshmi Agencies from the Indian Oil Corporation in the year 1987. Subsequently, the petitioner was inducted as a partner in the Page No.2 of 8
partnership firm. Thereafter, there was a dispute with regard to the partnership firm, thereby the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.168 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tiruppur seeking declaration to declare the petitioner alone as sole proprietor of the partnership firm and the same was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned letter dated 09.09.2025 for reconstitution of the dealership. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the said Sanjeevi formed a partnership firm in the year 1987, subsequently, the petitioner was inducted as a partner, however, there was a partnership dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents. Further, he submits that the petitioner has got 55% shares, whereas the private respondents got 45% shares. He further submits that the private respondents are continuously harrassing the petitioner for continuing the dealership. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a suit, however the same was dismissed, against which, the petitioner is prepared to prefer an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. In the meanwhile, the 2nd Page No.3 of 8
respondent has issued the impugned letter, which is wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the dealership license was granted in favour of the partnership firm. Subsequently, there was a partnership dispute in between the petitioner and the private respondents. The petitioner was inducted as a partner in the partnership firm and by claiming that he is the sole proprietor of the partnership firm, he has filed a suit, which was dismissed. Without obtaining an order from the competent Civil court for sole proprietorship, the petitioner is continuing the dealership in the partnership firm, which is wholly unsustainable and therefore, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned letter to the petitioner, which cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2 and also perused the materials available on record.
8. Admittedly, one Sanjeevi, who is the father of the respondents Page No.4 of 8
3 and 4 had obtained a retail outlet license in the name and style of M/s.Lakshmi Agencies from the Indian Oil Corporation in the year 1987. Subsequently, the petitioner was inducted as a partner in the partnership firm. Thereafter, there was a dispute with regard to the partnership firm, thereby the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.168 of 2017 and the same was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned letter dated 09.09.2025 for reconstitution of the dealership, assailing which, the present writ petition is filed.
9. It is seen that there was a partnership dispute between the petitioner and private respondents. In such circumstances, without obtaining an order from the competent Civil Court declaring the petitioner as a sole proprietor of the partnership firm, the petitioner is continuing the dealership, which is per se unsustainable. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned letter to the petitioner, which cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or arbitrary. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Page No.5 of 8
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to workout the remedy in the manner known to law. There shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, enabling him to obtain appropriate orders. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18.09.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp Page No.6 of 8
To 1.The Chairman, M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, JB Tito Marg, New Delhi - 110 049.
2.The Chief Divisional Manager (Sales), Marketing Division, Indian Oil Bhavan, No.8/1079, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
Page No.7 of 8
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp 18.09.2025 Page No.8 of 8