Former Delhi High Court Judge Under Scanner Over Running LPG Agency During Judicial Tenure
Delhi High Court Judge Under Scanner Over Running LPG Agency During Judicial Tenure Published By, Last Updated: July 16, 2026, 11:08 IST Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Delhi High Court Judge Under Scanner Over Running LPG Agency During Judicial Tenure Published By, Last Updated: July 16, 2026, 11:08 IST Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) suspended the LPG distributorship registered in his name, alleging that he continued to hold the dealership while in office. Rapid Read The matter is currently before the Delhi High Court. Delhi High Court judge and e Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court Siddharth Mridul has come under scrutiny after it was found that he was running a LPG agency while serving as a constitutional court judge without obtaining the required permission. After the inicdent came into limelight, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) suspended the LPG distributorship registered in his name, alleging that he continued to hold the dealership while in office. According to BPCL, Mridul was allotted the “Kitchen Flame" LPG dealership in 1984 before beginning his legal career. He started practising in the Delhi High Court in 1986, was appointed a judge of the Delhi High Court in 2008, became the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court in 2023, and retired in November 2024, Times of India reported.
The PSU alleged that despite holding judicial office for nearly 16 years, the distributorship agreement continued to be renewed periodically, including in May and September 2025. The latest agreement remains valid until August 2030. The issue came to light after BPCL received a public complaint in December 2025 alleging that the dealership continued in the name of a former constitutional court judge. Following the complaint, BPCL issued notices to former judge on May 29, 2026, and subsequently sent two more notice seeking an explanation. In its notices, BPCL said it appeared that Mridul had not disclosed his full-time judicial appointment while the distributorship agreements remained in force. The company also alleged that continuing the dealership during judicial service without prior written permission violated several clauses of the distributorship agreement. “It prima facie appears that material facts regarding your full-time engagement in constitutional/judicial office during the subsistence of earlier distributorship agreements, and the manner in which the distributorship was being operated in your absence, were not disclosed to the corporation at any point of time," BPCL said in its notice. Referring to the clauses of the distributorship agreement, BPCL stated, “It prima facie appears that taking up and/or continuing judicial employment during the subsistence of the distributorship, without even prior written permission of BPCL, is violative of various clauses of the agreement." According to BPCL, Justice (retd) Mridul did not respond to any of the notices.
The BriefWire