Writ petition challenging penalty imposed by Indian Oil Corporation for LPG cylinder irregularities was dismissed for non-prosecution as petitioner's counsel had no instructions and did not hold vakalatnama.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6496 of 2011
M/s. S.K. Gas Services, a Partnership Firm, having its works and office at Shop No. 9, Amrapali Building, Bariatu Road, Ranchi 834008, through one of its partners Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, son of Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, R/o Flat No. 602, Trikot Apartment, Radium Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Ranchi
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
5 Deputy General Manager (Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Eastern Region 1. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700016.
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : None For the Resp.-IOCL : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate Mr. Aditya M. Khandelwal, Adv.
08 /3rd October 2024
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
“For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order contained in Letter No. Ref.J/LPG/RMDG/S.K.GAS Dated 27.09.2011 issued under the signature of Mr. Uday Kumar, Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd..
whereby and whereunder, a revised penalty of Rs.4.57,262/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Two only) has been imposed on the petitioner Agency on the alleged grounds of discrepancies/ irregularities in the supply of L.P.G. Cylinders by the petitioner agency purportedly in exercise of the powers under "Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2001 for L.P.G." as approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, for taking the penal action in cases of established irregularities by the concerned Officer incharge of the Area/Territory, which is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice on the malafide report of the private respondent - Mr. J.N. Singh and based on no established facts, more so, as the earlier order dated 30.04.2011, imposing a penalty of Rs. 17,40,545/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Forty Thousand Five Hundred Forty Five only) on the same set of charges, now revised by the present impugned order dated 27.09.2011 in itself shows complete non application of mind on incorrect and vague charges on the part of the respondents which have not been established in any proper proceedings in accordance with law, while the detailed showcause repeatedly filed on behalf of the petitioner has been completely overlooked without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as is a mandatory requirement in such cases of serious charges which entail grave and adverse civil consequences.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) upon the official respondents commanding upon the official respondents of the Indian Oil Corporation to act in accordance with law in the matter of imposition of any penalty of alleged irregularities against the petitioner after giving notice and full opportunity of personal hearing and not to act in a vindictive manner against the petitioner on the basis of motivated and unsubstantiated report of the then Field Manager who had personal grudge to settle against the petitioner for objecting to his demand for personal favours.
(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the "Marketing Discipline Guidelines - 2001 for L.P. G." issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India containing the proposed penalties for established major/ minor irregularities committed by the L.P.G. Distributors as the said Guidelines are arbitrary and without jurisdiction and in teeth of the well settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the penalty proposed to be levied under the said Guidelines against the erring L.P.G. Distributor does not contain any provisions for mandatory opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned before taking any action, no procedure for determining the fault/ Irregularities is prescribed therein and the said Guidelines do not contain any provision of Appeal either against any action taken under the impugned Guidelines to the aggrieved person against such punitive action in the nature of quasi penal charge and punishment and is therefore, bad in law.
AND/OR
(iv) For issuance of any other relief(s) as the petitioner may be found entitled in law.”
2. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner in this case.
3. This case was to be heard along with batch matters of four other analogous cases and was tagged with them. In other matters, the arguments have already been concluded.
4. Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate submits that he has no instructions in this case and he does not hold the Vakalatnama for the petitioner.
5. Since nobody is there to pursue this case, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
7. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
M/s. S.K. Gas Services
Union of India
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
