Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt G R Priya vs Union Of India on 9 April, 2008

Author: K.L.Manjunath

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. oa

DATED THIS THE 9' DAY OF APRIL, 2008 -

THE HON'RLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH

"WRIT PETITION NO.8916 CF 2007(M-RES)

1

SMT GR PRIYA | pe
AGE: 30 YEARS,M aAYD H CORRCTOR
IBP AUTC SERVICE . :

R/AT NO.CA-11/A. 1978 MAIR

25TH CROSS EER LAYOUT.
Ir 'SECTOR. BARGALROR 34 .

... PETITIONER |

(By aris uy scvaieing ay. »

UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS SECRETAYRY

o DEPT. OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

NEW DELAT

'XINDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD

-IBP BOUSE 34-A

NIRMAL CHANDRA STREET.
KOLKATTA 13° |
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR .

SOUTHERN REGION
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LID.,



4 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LID., Cy
REP. BY ITS CHIEF DIVIBTONAL 'RETAIL :
SALES MANAGER
BANGALORE DIVISION
NO. 29, P.KALING BAO ROAD
BANGALORE 27

SRI. R. GOPALARKISE BMA

THIS W.P. I8 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
227 OF TSR CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:

QUASH TER POLICY GUIDELINES Dr. 6.9. 2006

ISSUED BY Rl VILE aNK-7.

iz Petition coming on for orders this

aay, the Court made the following:

--_----

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and

- the | central Government Standing Counsel for,

authorisation to run a retail outlet of the

2" respondent Company pursuant to M &

ao « ae 5 Agreement for a period of one year from 1.11.2002. The sane has been contimed till 31.1.2007 due to order extension granted

2. The last extensicn vas made on, 31.10.2005 for a period "of two years even before the expiry of 'two years of period vide Annexure-G at. 28, 5. .2097. o The petitioner wa :

called upon to surrender 'the retail outlet. This onier "aa ealled an question in. this petition | on the grownd, that before the expiry :
of the. licence period the petitioner cannot; _ be called upon to surrender the premizes: The | petitioner is aiso questioning the terms and. " senditions. F of the policy guidsalines vabg.9.b008 and the petitioner is also . 'to regularise the dealership in his favour. ; 3. The learned Advocate for the Company _ contends that the license granted to the oY uniform policy, such policy decision cannot ke 7 ;
4
- questioned by the licencee of the Company. Ie the circumstances this Court is of the opinion. : that the petition has to be dimmissed solely, on the ground that the petition nas becom infructuous due to effinx of tine. |
6. Accordingly, _ . this "petition is Sd/~ Ak Ju d ge