New Delhi: A former Delhi High Court judge who later served as Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court retained an LPG distributorship that was originally allotted in 1984, prompting queries from state-owned Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) after a public complaint.
The distributorship was allotted in 1984 by BPCL under the trade name “Kitchen Flame.” Records indicate the agency remained active for decades and was repeatedly renewed while Justice (retd) Siddharth Mridul held full-time judicial office.
Mridul was appointed to the Delhi High Court bench in March 2008 and was elevated as Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court in October 2023. He retired on November 21, 2024. Despite these senior constitutional roles, renewal documents show the distributorship contract continued to be renewed, with agreements bearing signatures as recently as May and September 2023 and another renewal dated May 2025, as reported by The Times of India.
BPCL Action After Complaint
Following a public complaint that raised concerns about a sitting constitutional judge holding and operating a commercial LPG agency, BPCL issued a notice to Justice (Retd) Mridul. The petroleum PSU asked why the distributorship should not be suspended, pointing to two central issues: the judge’s failure to disclose his status as a full-time constitutional office-holder and questions about how the agency was operated while he held judicial office.
According to the notice, BPCL requested Justice Mridul explain why the distributorship should not be suspended and to clarify how the agency was being run during his tenure on the bench. The PSU also sought details regarding disclosure (or non-disclosure) of his judicial office at the time of renewals.
Justice (retd) Mridul did not respond to BPCL’s notices, and on July 6 the PSU suspended the LPG distributorship operating as “Kitchen Flame.”
Two months earlier, Monika Yadav — widow of Deepak Yadav, who had been managing the agency — moved the Delhi High Court, asking BPCL to decide her application to reconstitute the proprietorship in her name. The court had given BPCL two months to decide.
After BPCL suspended the dealership, Monika returned to the high court, saying BPCL ignored the earlier order and was now suspending LPG supply. In her petition she said she had complied with requirements, relied on the court’s direction, and was being victimised because of the outgoing proprietor’s conduct and BPCL’s delay.
