Subhasini Hansda vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation LTD., Through Its Territory Manager

Facts

The petitioner, Subhasini Hansda, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking directions to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and another respondent to renew her petrol pump dealership lease, which was allegedly closed since January 2025 due to mismanagement. The petitioner claimed to have fulfilled all terms of the agreement dated 21.10.2010 and had made representations regarding the renewal. She stated that the closure caused her economic loss, including issues related to GST clearance. The petition highlighted that despite her efforts and clearance of dues, the petrol pump remained non-operational, leading to arbitrary and unjust treatment, violating Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner. Instead, after hearing arguments from both sides, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner requested liberty to pursue her remedies in accordance with the law. The learned counsel for the respondents raised no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court granted the permission to withdraw the petition. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the petitioner to work out her remedy as per law. No specific findings were made on the contractual obligations, constitutional rights, or the alleged mismanagement and economic losses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority, specifically BPCL, is obligated to renew the petitioner's petrol pump dealership lease as per the agreement dated 21.10.2010, and to facilitate the reopening of the outlet which has been closed since January 2025? (Question of law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and administrative action). 2. Whether the continued closure of the petrol pump and the alleged inaction of BPCL in renewing the lease constitutes arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional treatment violating Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law, concerning fundamental rights). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that she had fulfilled all terms of the agreement and cleared all dues. She contended that BPCL's failure to renew the lease and reopen the petrol pump was arbitrary and unjust, causing her significant economic loss, including difficulties with GST payments. She relied on the agreement dated 21.10.2010 and Articles 19 & 21 of the Constitution. Respondents' contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the case.