Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar Joiya vs Union Of India (2023:Rj-Jd:36048) on 19 October, 2023
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:36048] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3603/2022 Vinod Kumar Joiya S/o Shri Birbal Ram Ji, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Factory Area, Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Jodhpur Retail Region, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Deputy General Manager (D.G.M.), Regional Retail Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Executive Officer-RE And MIS, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Jodhpur Retail Region, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore Mr. Abhijeet Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 19/10/2023
1. The present writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:-
"A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the reply to the Legal notice dated 22.11.2021 (Annex.-10) preferred by the respondents whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for the compensation amount to the tune (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:59:00 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:36048] (2 of 4) [CW-3603/2022] of Rs.22,50,050/- may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate order writ or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to reimburse the petitioner the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.22,50,050/- communicated vide communication dated 17.04.2021 (Annex.-07) C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to repair the automation system of the petrol pump of the petitioner, to make the petrol pump operational. D. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to do the necessary repairing work of the damage caused to the outfit of the petrol pump of the petitioner during the period for which the petrol pump was not operational (i.e. from 10.04.2021 to till date) to run the petrol pump effectively.
E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. On last occasion, the Court had posed a query, as to how a reply sent by the counsel for the respondent-Corporation in response to the petitioner's notice is amenable to challenge before this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when there is no order of the respondent-Corporation?
3. Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, who is operating petrol pump since 2021, has not been given due cooperation by the respondent Oil Company and in spite of the fact that there is a fault in (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:59:00 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:36048] (3 of 4) [CW-3603/2022] automation system at petitioner's outlet, the respondents did not ensure sending any mechanic or Engineer to repair or rectify the same. Resultantly, since April, 2021, petitioner's retail outlet is non-functioning for no fault on his part.
4. Learned counsel argued that there is no formal complaint or proceedings initiated by the respondent against petitioner's retail outlet and the only denial, which they have got is, the reply to the legal notice filed by the petitioner.
5. Mr. Rathore, submitted that in essence, the petitioner's grievance is the inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 to 4 and since, they did not pay heed to petitioner's grievance, he approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition for other reliefs as well.
6. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater, appearing for the respondent-Corporation submitted that petitioner's notice has been aptly replied by the counsel for the respondent-Corporation and so far as petitioner's grievance, as highlighted before this Court relating to fault in automation/system is concerned, the respondents have no difficulty in attending the same, but it is only due to non- cooperation of the petitioner himself, the same could not be rectified/corrected.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable, at least qua the first prayer.
8. So far as the legal notice dated 22.11.2021 is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, a reply given by the counsel cannot be made a subject matter of challenge in a writ petition. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:59:00 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:36048] (4 of 4) [CW-3603/2022]
9. Be that as it may. Considering petitioner's grievance in relation to not paying heed to petitioner's request regarding correction or repair of petitioner's automated system, in view of the concession given by Mr. Bhandari, learned Sr. Counsel that the respondent would send their Engineer/mechanic on or before 26.10.2023, subject of course to the cooperation of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of.
10. The respondent-Corporation is directed to send an Engineer or expert to make correction/repair of the automated system that has been installed at petitioner's retail outlet. The petitioner shall also be required to cooperate.
11. Needless to observe that if any adverse action is taken by the Corporation, the petitioner shall be free to take legal remedies in accordance with law.
12. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 664-Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:59:00 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)