Partly allowed

Nitin Arjun Thorat v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2014WP/2660/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Bombay High Court directed the Grievance Redressal Committee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd to reconsider the petitioner's complaint afresh. The Court held that the grievance was not considered properly in the previous order, and it imposed a stay on steps based on the Letter of Intent until the fresh decision is communicated.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 7th February 2013 set aside; complainant to be heard afresh by Grievance Redressal Committee; stay on Letter of Intent steps.

Nitin Arjun Thorat Vs Hindustan Petroleum… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

19.wp-2660-13.doc

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 2660 of 2013.

¶6

Nitin Arjun Thorat … Petitioner V/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and others … Respondents

¶7

Mr S. S. Pakle a/with Mr Avinash R. Belge for the Petitioner. Ms Amrita Joshi i/by the Law Point for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr S.R.Nargolkar a/with Ms Meenakshi Sakhare for Respondent No.3.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 16th July, 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents and the learned Counsel for the third respondent.

¶11

When this Court noticed that the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted by the first respondent has not at all considered the grievances made by the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the third respondent, on instructions, states that without disturbing the Letter of Intent already issued to the third respondent, the said respondent has no objection if the complaint made by the petitioner is considered afresh as per the grievance/complaint redressal system provided in clause 19 of the brochure published by the first respondent. The learned Counsel for the first and second respondents states that the said respondents in principal have no objection for reconsideration of the complaint. However, she submits that

1 of 3

19.wp-2660-13.doc

grant of interim relief will create difficulties.

¶16

We have perused the clause 19 of the brochure published by the first respondent. Clause (a) of Clause 19 itself provides that pending the disposal of complaints, the issuance of LOI shall be kept in abeyance.

¶17

Considering the fact that the respondents have no objection for fresh consideration of the complaint made by the petitioner, we need not to keep the petition pending. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing following order:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(a) We set aside the order dated 7^th February, 2013 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee of the first respondent only on the ground that the grievance made by the petitioner has not been considered in proper perspective;

¶20

(b) We direct that the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted

¶21

by the first Respondent shall consider the complaint filed by the Petitioner afresh. The Committee shall permit both the petitioner and the third respondent to produce additional documents;

¶22

(c) After considering the complaint afresh and after considering the documents placed on record by the parties, the Committee shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today;

2 of 3

19.wp-2660-13.doc

(d) The order passed on the complaint shall be communicated to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent at their respective addresses mentioned in the cause title of this petition;

¶27

(e) Till communication of the decision on the complaint of the petitioner to the complainant, no further steps shall be taken by the first and the second respondents on the basis of the letter of intent issued to the third respondent;

¶28

(f) If the order passed on the complaint be adverse to the petitioner, no further steps shall be taken on the letter of intent for a period of three weeks from the date on which the order is communicated to the petitioner;

¶29

(g) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties and all the said contentions are required to be decided by the Grievance Redressal Committee;

¶30

(h) The petition is disposed of in above terms;

¶31

(i) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

(A.S.CHANDURKAR, J)

¶33

( A.S. OKA, J )

¶34

3 of 3

Nitin Arjun Thorat v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Arjun Thorat v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

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

Sanjay Vishwanath Paramane Vs the State of Maharashtra -through Secretary Education Department and Ors.

Akhil Bharat Sadhu Sangam Trust and Anr. Vs Pandarpur Nagar Parishad, Pandarpur and Ors.

Gramsabha of Village Battis Shirala, through Sarpanch Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry for Forest and Environment and Ors.

Shaikh Mohammedali Abdul Rehman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Hemant Balaji Patil Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Ors.

M/S. Shield Protection Gurads Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra at the Instance of Principal Secretary and Ors.