Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Termination Of LPG Distributorship For Concealment Of Facts By OCI Card Holder

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a gas agency seeking the quashing of a termination letter for their LPG dealership in Hoshiarpur.

The dealership agreement of M/s SRA H.P. Gas Agency was terminated by the Corporation on the grounds that the applicant - the petitioner no. 2 in the case, had concealed material facts while applying for the distributorship and was not eligible for it.

A complaint had been received by the company alleging that the petitioner had concealed information while applying for the distributorship and was not eligible for it. The complaint was based on the common eligibility criteria, which stated that the applicant eligible for selection should be an Indian citizen and be a resident of India.

The court noted that the petitioner had filled out the application form stating that he is an Indian citizen and had nowhere mentioned that he is an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI). While discussing the conditions precedent for determining the eligibility of an applicant as contained in clause 5.1.1 of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri explained that the applicant has to be an Indian citizen and he has to be a resident of India.

"The expression 'and' has been used by way of conjunction which would mean that both the conditions must co-exist apart from being conditions precedent and sine qua non for determining the eligibility of an applicant. In other words, one condition will not exclude the other condition and in the absence of fulfillment of one condition as aforesaid, still the applicant will not be eligible. Therefore, for a person to be eligible, he has to fulfill both the conditions i.e. Indian citizen and also resident of India regarding which no dispute has been raised by any learned counsel for the parties," said the court.

Referring to the notification issued by the Central Government in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 7B of Citizenship Act on 11.04.2005, the court said that an OCI has been granted the benefit pertaining to economic, financial and educational fields at par with that of a Non-Resident Indian pertaining to the facilities available to him.

"Therefore, the issue involved in the present case would be as to whether the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid notification or not. In case the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid notification, then certainly the termination order which has been passed by the Corporation would not sustain," said the court. 

The court observed that the petitioner was residing in India for five years preceding the date of application and therefore, if it were to be assumed that he is an Indian citizen, in view of the affidavit filed by him, he would not be a Non-Resident Indian.

"In case he is not a Non-Resident Indian, then by virtue of the aforesaid notification, he cannot be treated at par with an OCI. Admittedly, the petitioner is not citizen of India simplicitor but he is only an OCI and learned counsel for the petitioners is claiming parity only on the basis of the notification ... Therefore, either the petitioner violates the eligibility criteria or he does not fall within the parameters of the notification ... because both of them create a dichotomous situation," said the court. 

It added: "By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner being an OCI would fulfil both the eligibility criteria having two conditions co-existent and also the notification Annexure P-10 because they cannot be satisfied together and simultaneously at one point of time."

The court said it is of the considered view that "once the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria and there is a specific provision for termination of an agreement after following due procedure and the same has been so adopted and followed by the respondent-Corporation, the present petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed,” the court further held.

Case Title: M/s SRA HP Gas Agency and others vs Union of India and others CWP-7681 of 2017

Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Sr. Panel Counsel, for respondents No.1 and 4.

Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.