Allowed

Sudhakar Dattatraya Deomali v. Indian Oil Corporation and Others

Bombay HC21 Jun 2016WP/4151/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition challenging the termination of an LPG distributorship agreement was allowed because the Armed Forces Tribunal had subsequently upheld the petitioner's disability, removing the basis for cancelling his eligibility certificate and terminating the agreement. The impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30-04-2013 was quashed and set aside. The writ petition was allowed and the rule made absolute.

Sudhakar Dattatraya Deomali Vs Indian Oil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP-4151.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4151 OF 2013

¶4

Sudhakar S/o Dattatraya Deomali, Age: 50 yrs, Occ. Business, P/o Ms Sunder Inden M.N. No 1857, Main Road, Phulambri Dist. Aurangabad ...PETITIONER

¶5

versus

¶6

Indian Oil Corporation, Through its Deputy General Manager (LPG) Marketing Devision for Maharashtra State 254-C, Dr. Annie Bezent Road Worli Colony, Mumbai-30

¶7

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Area Officer, Area Office, Anti Commerce Centre, 5th Floor, East STreet, Camp Pune

¶8

The Union of India, Through Secretary, Petroleum Ministry New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. S.B. Deshpande, ASG for respondent No. 3

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 21^st JUNE, 2016.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : S.V. Gangapurwala, J.)

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties.

¶14

2 WP-4151.13

¶15

Petitioner assails order dated 30-04-2013 issued by respondent No. 1, thereby terminating letter of intent/distributorship agreement of the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 14-05-2013 has granted adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause "C" i.e. respondents were prevented from discontinuing the petitioner's LPG distributorship license and agreement by staying execution and operation of the impugned order dated 30-04-2013.

¶16

Said ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 14-05-2013 is still in force.

¶17

Mr. Kadethankar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is an ex-serviceman, who had suffered disability while in service and was discharged from the defence services. Disability Certificate was also issued. Pursuant to advertisement issued by respondents No. 1 and 2, the petitioner had applied being exserviceman and having suffered disability while in service. The petitioner was selected and was issued LPG distributorship by respondents No. 1 and 2. Show cause notice dated 04-12-2012 was issued to the petitioner on the ground that eligibility certificate issued to the petitioner has been cancelled. Though petitioner has replied said notice, however, order of termination of distributorship agreement was passed by respondent No. 1 on 30-04-2013.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner approached to Armed Forces Tribunal against rejecting eligibility certificate by filing Original Application. The Tribunal has allowed said

¶19

3 WP-4151.13

¶20

Original Application and held that petitioner suffered disability from 01-07-1992 and at the time of discharging the duties, he had suffered disability, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the of rounding off the disability pension from 11.14% to 50%. According to learned counsel, as the Tribunal has allowed Original Application, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶21

We have heard Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to learned counsel, the fact of the eligibility certificate being cancelled was existing as on the date of issuance of show cause notice and there was no illegality committed by respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order and the same has been passed on the basis of cancellation of eligibility certificate by the defence.

¶22

We have heard Mr. Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No. 3.

¶23

We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for respective parties. Basis for issuance of show cause notice dated 04-12-2012 by respondents No. 1 and 2 appears to be a letter dated 11-09-2012 received from the Government of India, Ministry of defence, informing that eligibility certificate dated 05-12-2007 issued by the Defence to the petitioner is cancelled. Facts as on the date of issuance of the certificate were existing as stated in show cause notice. It appears that petitioner approached before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at Delhi against rejection of the eligibility certificate. The Tribunal vide order dated 30-04-2013 has allowed the

¶24

4 WP-4151.13

¶25

Original Application filed by the petitioner upholding disability and also further observed that the petitioner is entitled for benefit of disability pension upto 50%.

¶26

Considering aforesaid aspect of the matter, the premise on which impugned order dated 30-04-2013 is issued does not survive.

¶27

In light of the above, impugned order dated 30-04-2013 issued by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside.

¶28

Writ petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶32

MTK

Sudhakar Dattatraya Deomali v. Indian Oil Corporation and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Dattatraya Deomali v. Indian Oil Corporation and 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

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Magasvargiya Kashtakari Sahkari Griha Nirman Society Ltd, Aurangabad Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Sudhakar Vishnupant Subhedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shahada Taluka Co-Operative Education Society Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Ambrushi Mohan Lomte and Ors.

Indus Towers Limited and Others Vs Municipal Corporation, Dhule and Others

Babasaheb Duli Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others