Dismissed

Smt. Sapna Dadhich v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Rajasthan HC10 Apr 2008IA/4149/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a stay application challenging the cancellation of locations for retail outlet allotment by Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. The court held that the cancellation constituted a valid policy decision and was not mala fide, denying immediate relief but reserving the petitioner's preference for any future site openings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was not granted any relief; preferential right to be granted only if site is reopened in the future.

Smt. Sapna Dadhich Vs Indian Oil… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

¶3

S.B. MISC. STAY PETITION NO.4149/2008 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 7837/2007 [SMT. SAPNA DADHICH VS. INDIAN OIL CORP. LTD. & ANR.]

¶4

Dated : 10.04.2008

¶5

HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J.

¶6

Mr.M.S.Singhvi for the petitioner.

¶7

¶8

Though the writ petition has come up on second stay application and it is otherwise contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has even moved application for amendment of the writ petition to challenge the order Annex.6 so filed along with the second stay application.

¶9

Perusal of the Annex.6 shows that it is not only cancellation of location for which the advertisement issued and dispute involves in this writ petition but many other cites were cancelled for allotment of retail outlet by the respondents as a policy decision. Even reply of the writ petition so submitted by the respondents otherwise shows that L.O.I. was not issued in favour of the petitioner looking to the fact that site was not found as viable. The reasons given in the reply filed by the respondents justifies their action and in the present matter when even L.O.I. has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. A challenge to the action of the respondents as well as decision for cancellation of sites pursuant to Annex.6 cannot be said to be illegal rather it always remains within the domain of the administration to

¶10

¶11

take policy decision which otherwise is not suffering from a voice of malafides because the case of the petitioner has not been taken in isolation in as much as hundred of sites have been cancelled vide the Annex.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that if in future or after some time itself, respondents takes a decision to open the site on the place for which selection was made then at least the petitioner should be given retail outlet or priority.

¶12

Looking to the fact that so far as the present writ petition is concerned, not only for the reasons given in the reply but subsequent cancellation of site involved in the present writ petition as well as many other sites, petitioner cannot be granted any relief, however, if in future the respondents will take a decision to open retail outlet at the site in dispute they will give preferential right to the petitioner.

¶13

With the aforesaid discussion and observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶14

(MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J.

¶15

mamta

Smt. Sapna Dadhich v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sapna Dadhich v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

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

Harsore Krishak Seva Sah. Sansthan Vs Uco Bank and Anr.

Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Ram Chandra Vs B.O.R.,Raj.Ajmer and Ors.

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Madhav Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Paras Mal Vs State and Anr.

Sawai Singh Vs B.O.R.,Ajmer and Ors.