Pawan Kumar vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd And Another on 26 July, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Pawan Kumar vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd And Another on 26 July, 2021

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

                                                1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                    CWP No. 368 of 2020
                                                    Date of Decision: 26.7.2021




                                                                           .

    Pawan Kumar                                                             ...Petitioner.
                               Versus
    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and another                                 ...Respondents.





    Coram:

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1 No

    For the petitioner:   rMr. Roshan Lal Thakur, Advocate.

    For the respondents: Mr. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sanya Kaushal,
                         Advocate.


    Anoop Chitkara, Judge (Oral)

The grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-8, dated 20.6.2019, (impugned letter), the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. did not afford him any opportunity and as such it is arbitrary.

2. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sanya Kaushal, Advocate, argued that there is no arbitrariness in the impugned letter and he has also drawn attention of this Court to the guidelines on selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets through draw of lots/bidding process, condition No. (v), Group 2, which reads as under:

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2021 20:11:16 :::HCHP 2

"Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMS."

3. A perusal of the petition reveals that the present lease deed is an unregistered document, which certainly cannot be extended beyond one year and even otherwise any terms with the requirements for selection of dealers.

4. At this stage, Mr. Roshan Lal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case he is afforded an opportunity to rectify all the defects and in case Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is willing to consider his amended application, he would be satisfied.

5. On the other hand, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation submits that in case this Court directs us and exercises its discretion, then it should be for a very limited period and not beyond a week.

6. Given above, this petition would achieve its purpose in case the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to rectify all the defects on or before 3rd August,2021. However, it is clarified that in case the petitioner is unable to furnish the rectified documents upto 3.8.2021, including a lease deed duly registered under Indian Registration Act, which is made as per the terms of Transfer of Property Act, then it shall not be obligatory to the Indian Oil Corporation to consider his application, unless they do it on their own. However, in case petitioner furnished all ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2021 20:11:16 :::HCHP 3 the papers on or before 3.8.2021, then Indian Oil Corporation must consider his application as per the guidelines.

In view of above, the petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications if any. Interim order dated 17.1.2020 is also vacated.

Copy dasti.

Anoop Chitkara, Judge 26th July, 2021 (Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2021 20:11:16 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court