Quashed

M/S Lallite Filling Centre, a Sole Proprietorship Thru. Smt. Vijayakirti and Another v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024/1034/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed a termination order and appellate order issued against a petroleum retailer. The Court held that neither order granted an opportunity of hearing nor considered the petitioner's reply. The petition was disposed of by quashing the impugned orders and remanding the matter for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 15.07.2017 and 26.11.2021 quashed. Matter remanded for fresh order within six months considering reply and granting personal hearing.

M/S Lallite Filling Centre, a Sole Proprietorship… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70278

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1034 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Lallite Filling Centre, A Sole Proprietorship Thru. Smt. Vijayakirti And Another Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Petroleum And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Misra,Anuj Kudesia,Vikas Kumar Agrawal

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Krishna Lal Yadav,Manish Jauhari

¶7

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶8

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Jauhari who appears for the respondents - Indian Oil Corporation.

¶9

The present petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 15.07.2017 whereby the retail outlet license of the petitioner was terminated as well as the appellate order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed.

¶10

The neat contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a retail outlet dealer by the respondents Indian Oil Corporation and subsequently based upon some inspection, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that there was certain irregularities noticed in an inspection carried out by the State Government authorities. The petitioner was called upon to file a reply in the same show cause notice dated 21.06.2017. As the petitioner did not file the reply within the time granted in the show cause notice, an order came to be passed on 15.07.2017 holding that the petitioner was granted fifteen days' time to file a reply, however, he did not file the same and subsequently, after the expiry of fifteen days' time, he has filed a reply, which cannot be considered by the licensing authority and thus, it was noted that as the reply has not been filed within the time, the charges are deemed to be accepted. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order.

¶11

The appellate authority while passing the order dated 26.11.2021 noticed that a reply was filed and proceeded to hold that the reply filed by the petitioner has been considered by the licensing authority and premised on the said, as well as other grounds proceeded to decide the appeal.

¶12

A perusal of the said two orders, prima-faice the licensing

¶13

authority while passing the termination order has not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner. There also does not appear any opportunity of hearing being granted to the petitioner as is evident from the said order. The appellate order also suffers from the vice of perversity as it wrongly records that the defense of the petitioner was considered by the licensing authority. Both the said orders suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as neither the reply has been considered nor an opportunity of hearing has been granted, which is also contrary to the M.D.G. Guidelines particularly paragraph 8.5.6 to 8.5.8.

¶14

Considering the two impugned orders dated 15.07.2017 and 26.11.2021 violating the principles of natural justice as also the MDG Guidelines, as such both cannot be sustained and are quashed. The matter is remanded to the licensing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six months after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and a personal hearing to be granted to the petitioner.

¶15

The writ petition stands disposed off.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 VNP/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Lallite Filling Centre, a Sole Proprietorship Thru. Smt. Vijayakirti and Another v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Lallite Filling Centre, a Sole Proprietorship Thru. Smt. Vijayakirti and Another v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors.

Mrityunjai Singh Shiv Ji Thru. His Natural Guardain Father Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sports and 4 Others

Rabind Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Food andCIVIL Supplies Lko.and Ors.

M/S Gobind Ram and Sons Barabanki Thru. Partner Mohit Agrawal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration, Lucknow and Others

M/S Voir India Electronics, New Delhi Thru. Authorized Signatory/ Director Mohit Goyal Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow Bench ,Lko. Thru. Its Registrar and 2 Others