Calcutta High Court
M/S. Roy & Co.& Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 September, 2013
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
ORDER SHEET
GA No.2982 of 2013
WP No.1240 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S. ROY & CO.& ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPEN SEN
Date : 27th September, 2013.
Mr.L.C.Bihani, Sr.Adv.
Ms.Nibedita Pal, Adv.
Mr.R.Dhara, Adv.
..for the petitioners.
Mr.M.S.Yadav, Adv.
..for IOC.
Mr.Kishore Datta, Adv.
Mr.Billwadal Bhattachayya, Adv.
..for the State.
The Court: This application has come up at the instance of the petitioners with a prayer that some portions of the judgement dated 01.09.2011 passed by this Court need to be corrected as there are some typographical errors / clerical errors therein. The details of such corrections have been given in paragraph-4 and from which, it appears that at pages 14,18 and 19 reference to the IOC has been made wrongly in place of the Director of Consumer Goods. 2
At page 14 (in paragraph 20), therefore, the line beginning with the sentence "She has stated that upon reconstitution of the firm, a license was obtained from the IOC and it functioned smoothly, diligently, without any complaints or disturbance from any quarter", should be read as "She has stated that upon reconstitution of the Firm, a license was obtained from the Director of Consumer Goods and it functioned smoothly, diligently, without any complaints or disturbance from any quarter".
Similarly, at page 18 (in paragraph 24), the sentence beginning with the words "The Corporation cannot ignore the provisions of Clause 22 of the Deed of Partnership because it forms the basis and the foundation upon which, the Dealership Agreement was constituted and which received the seal of approval by the IOC when it proceeded to grant the license and / or entered into the Dealership Agreement with Siya Roy and the other two" should be read as "The Corporation cannot ignore the provisions of Clause 22 of the Deed of Partnership because it forms the basis and the foundation upon which, the Dealership Agreement was constituted and which received the seal of approval by the Director of Consumer Goods when it proceeded to grant the license and / or entered into the Dealership Agreement with Siya Roy and the other two".
At page 19 (in paragraph 25), the sentence "under such circumstances, this Court holds that the IOC cannot refuse to renew the license of the Petitioner No.1 under the 1968 Control Order nor can they refuse to allow the reconstitution of the partnership Firm of the Petitioner No.1 at this stage" should be read as "under such circumstances, this Court holds that the Director of Consumer Goods 3 cannot refuse to renew the license of the Petitioner No.1 under the 1968 Control Order nor can IOC refuse to allow the reconstitution of the partnership Firm of the Petitioner No.1 at this stage."
This order has been passed in the presence of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and they have not objected to the aforesaid corrections being made. Learned Counsel appearing for Indian Oil Corporations states that they have already preferred an appeal and, therefore, an observation should be made that this order should not prejudice the appeal.
This Court does have the locus standi to make any observations with regard to an appeal save and except to only observe that whatever corrections have been made, are clerical corrections only.
GA No.2982 of 2013 stands disposed of.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(TAPEN SEN, J.) dg2