Allowed

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 9 Ors. v. Bineet Pandey

Gauhati HC11 Aug 2022I.A.(Civil)/636/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application to vacate an interim order directing status quo in a dealership tender, the Single Judge set aside the stay, allowing IOCL to cancel the flawed advertisement and issue a fresh one while reserving the right of aggrieved parties to challenge subsequent actions.

What did the court decide?

Vacates interim order; grants leave to cancel advertisement; allows authority to proceed with cancellation.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 9 Ors. Vs Bineet Pandey — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010028922022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/636/2022

¶5

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND 9 ORS

¶6

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-4000051

¶7

2: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IOC-AOD STATE OFFICE GUWAHATI REFINERY P.O. NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781020

¶8

3: THE GENERAL MANAGER (VIGILANCE)

¶9

OIL INDIA CORPORATION LTD. NORTH EAST INTEGRATED STATE OFFICE NOONMATI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781020

¶10

4: THE CHIEF MANAGER (RETAIL SALES) GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE 4TH FLOOR EAST POINT TOWER BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021

¶11

5: THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER (DIVISIONAL MANAGER) GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE 4TH FLOOR EAST POINT TOWER BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-78102

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

BINEET PANDEY

¶14

S/O SRI GOPAL PANDEY, R/O KANYA APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 101, SATRIBARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781008

¶15

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783101 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BALIJANA CIRCLE OFFICE BALIJANA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783120 4:ROJIUL ISLAM S/O LT. HABIBUR REHMAN VILL. KARAIKHOWA P.O. KHARMUJA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 5:SABINA EASMIN W/O ROJIUL ISLAM VILL. KARAIKHOWA P.O. KHARMUJA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 6:BAPPI DAS S/O SRI RANJEET DAS R/O VILLAGE- BORVITHA DIST. GOALPARA PIN 78310

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : GA, ASSAM

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : MR H K DAS

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 11-08-2022

¶23

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bharadwaj,

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

learned standing counsel IOCL authorities appearing for the applicant in this I.A. Also heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/ opposite party No. 1 as well as Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8/ opposite party No. 4.

¶26

This I.A. has been filed with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 31-03-2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2287/2021 directing the respondents to maintain status quo as regards appointment of regular/ retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership for the location “Makri Junction to Khormuja Junction on SH-46”. The writ petitioner who was one of the applicants, has assailed the decision of the authorities to appoint the respondent No. 8 in the writ petition, as dealer for the said outlet inter alia on the ground that the land offer by the husband and the wife, i.e. respondent Nos. 8 and 9 was one and the same and therefore, the same plot of land could not have been validly accepted by the IOCL authorities for award of dealership by two applicants.

¶27

Mr. Choudhury submits that, on verification of facts made by the department, it has transpired that the location of the retail outlet involved in this writ petition was wrongly indicated in the advertisement notice and therefore, a decision has been taken in principle, to cancel the said advertisement and to issue fresh advertisement by correctly reflecting the location therein. Mr. Choudhury submits that if a fresh advertisement is issued, it will be open to all interested parties including the writ petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 to participate in the process subject to fulfilling the eligibility norms.

¶28

Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/ opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, has argued that the decision to cancel the advertisement is arbitrary and

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

aimed at extending undue favours to the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in the writ petition. Therefore, the said decision should be interdicted by this Court. Mr. Das has also submitted that the prayer made by the IOCL seeking leave to cancel the tender should not be allowed by this Court.

¶31

Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4, i.e. the respondent No. 8 in the writ petition is present.

¶32

If the decision to cancel the advertisement turns out to be the outcome of arbitrary decision making process, then in that event, it would always be open for the aggrieved party to question the said decision in an appropriate proceeding as and when a proper cause of action arises. However, that cannot be a ground for this Court to decline the prayer of the IOCL authorities at this stage, more so, in view of the submission of the learned Sr. standing counsel to the effect that there was a mistake in reflecting correct location in the earlier advertisement.

¶33

In view of the above and taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the interim order 31-03-2021 stands vacated.

¶34

Leave as prayed for is granted.

¶35

It would now be open for the authorities to take appropriate decision in the matter of cancellation of the advertisement.

¶36

It is, however, made clear that if a fresh advertisement is issued, it would be open

¶37

for the aggrieved parties to assail the same before this Court by filing appropriate petition, if so advised.

¶38

Page No.# 5/5

¶39

With the above observation, this I.A. stands disposed of.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 9 Ors. v. Bineet Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 9 Ors. v. Bineet Pandey

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

M/S North East Organised Floritech Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S North East Organised Floritech Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rajib Boruah Vs Jayant Narlikar

Khajur Begum Vs the Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Calcom Cement India Limited Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Chandana Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.