Summary: The Delhi High Court decided in favor of the Delhi Petrol Dealers Association, allowing them to use their chosen bank terminals instead of being forced to switch to those provided by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL).
The Delhi Petrol Dealers Association, which represents over 380 petrol dealers, filed a complaint against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The problem started when BPCL required dealers to use specific card payment machines from Pine Labs and AGS, which were only connected to HDFC Bank and RBL Bank. This rule was announced on October 8, 2020.
Freedom to Choose Banks: The Delhi Petrol Dealers Association argued that they should be free to choose which banks they work with. Many dealers had long-term relationships with different banks that provided essential financial services.
Financial Impact: Changing banks would disrupt their current financial setups, possibly increasing costs due to rental fees and affecting cash flow.
Service Limitations: The new system limited their ability to handle transactions, like accepting different payment methods or dealing with declined cards.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited said the new payment system would prevent issues like incorrect billing and ensure safer transactions. They argued that the system would improve transparency and the customer experience.
Justice Amit Sharma looked at the situation using a fairness test:
Legitimate Goal: The court acknowledged BPCL's aim to make transactions more transparent.
Appropriateness: The payment system was suitable for ensuring accurate billing.
Necessity: However, the need to limit dealers to specific banks was questioned. The court found no good reason why other banks couldn't offer similar services.
Balancing Rights: The court decided that BPCL's rule was too restrictive and unfair, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which promises equality before the law.
On December 22, 2025, the court canceled BPCL's notice, allowing dealers to keep using card payment machines from banks they prefer. The decision highlighted fairness and the dealers' right to manage their financial arrangements without unnecessary restrictions.
This decision supports the rights of businesses to choose their financial partners and underscores the importance of fair trade practices. It also sets an example for similar cases where companies try to impose restrictive conditions on their partners.
