Seema Sanjay Sable v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2025WP/1777/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposes writ petition challenging rejection of retail outlet dealership application, directing petitioner to approach competent authority under grievance redressal mechanism (Clause 18) within three weeks, with application not to be rejected on limitation grounds, and granting hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file grievance before competent authority under Clause 18 within three weeks, with protection from limitation and right to hearing; all contentions kept open ¶¶24-¶35

Seema Sanjay Sable vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

22-WP-1777-2024 (C).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1777 OF 2024

¶4

Seema Sanjay Sable ...Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Anr ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Nilesh Wable i/b Umesh Mankapure, for the Petitioner.

¶6

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATE : 01 APRIL 2025

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶9

praying for the following substantive relief.

¶10

“This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23rd November 2023 (Exhibit "F" hereto) passed by the Respondent No.2 and further direct the Respondents to allowthe Petitioner to participate in the further selection process of R.O. dealership between Gardi Bus Stop and Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalay (Mahuli) on right side of NH 160 while going from Gardi to Mahuli, District: Sangli under Scheduled caste category on 28th June 2023;”

¶11

We have perused the reasons as set out in the impugned communication

¶12

dated 23 November 2023 that the petitioner’s application for allotment of the

¶13

retail outlet dealership has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

Mayur Adane, PA

¶16

22-WP-1777-2024 (C).doc

¶17

not submit the initial security deposit as mandated under Clause 20 of the brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that soon after such decision dated 23 November 2023 was communicated to the petitioner, this petition came to be filed on 6 December 2023. His contention is that the said Brochure in Clause 18 provides for the Grievance Redressal System and the petitioner would intend to now invoke the grievance redressal mechanism.

¶19

Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to agitate the petitioner's contentions as urged in the present petition, the petitioner could apply to the competent authority.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the opinion

¶21

that the suggestion as made by the petitioner is fair. We permit the petitioner to make his grievance before the competent authority as contemplated under Clause 18.

¶22