Disposed

M/S. Shambhoo and Com. Filling Station v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2017CW/2105/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the petitioner to produce evidence within four weeks to prove its claim of authority to run the petroleum retail outlet. The respondent must decide the claim within four weeks and cannot stop supply until the final decision is passed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to produce evidence within four weeks; respondent to decide within four weeks; supply not to be stopped pending final decision.

M/S. Shambhoo and Com. Filling Station Vs Indian… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2105 / 2014

¶3

M/S. Shambhoo & Com. Filling Station, Through its partner Smt. Saroj Sethia W/o Sh. Rajendra Sethia, R/o Bhilwara Road, Chittorgarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Through its Chief Deivisonal Retail Sales Manager Udaipur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhawan Plot No.1162-63, Hiran Magri, Sector-11, Udaipur-313002.

¶7

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Through the Terminal Manager, Chittorgarh Terminal, Nimbaheda Road, -PO- Jalampura, Chittorgarh (Raj.).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali Sr. Advocate assisted by

¶11

Mr. Vipul Dharnia

¶12

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

12/07/2017

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-firm, who is running a retail outlet of respondent-IOCL at Chittorgarh, essentially with a prayer to restore the supply of the petroleum products to the retail outlet in question which was stopped by the respondent-IOCL on 18.03.2016.

¶17

The respondent-IOCL has stopped the supply of the petroleum products to the retail outlet in question on the ground that as a matter of fact the petitioner-firm has no authority or approval to run the retail outlet by it.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-2105/2014]

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-firm has submitted that the petitioner-firm is having every authority to operate the retail outlet and is ready to submit all evidence or proof of this effect to the respondent-IOCL to satisfy it regarding the claim of the petitioner-firm. It is also contended that the respondent-IOCL without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-firm has abruptly stopped the supply of the petroleum products to the retail outlet in question and therefore, the petitioner-firm was forced to file this writ petition.

¶21

Mr. Ravi Bhansali Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vipul Dharnia appearing for the respondent-IOCL has submitted that the petitioner-firm was granted opportunity to prove itself authorized to run the retail outlet of respondent-IOCL, but when it failed to satisfy the respondent-IOCL about its claim in respect of the retail outlet in question, the supply of the petroleum products was stopped by the respondent-IOCL. Mr. Ravi Bhansali fairly conceded that just before stopping of the supply of the petroleum products, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner.

¶22

Having considered the above facts and situation, this Court deems it proper to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner-firm to produce all its documentary or other evidence to prove its claim for running the retail outlet in question before the competent authority of respondent-IOCL within a period of four weeks from today. On filing of the same, the respondent-IOCL shall consider it and decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of four weeks, thereafter. The respondent-IOCL is also free to consider the submissions of

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-2105/2014]

¶25

interested parties while arriving at a final decisions in the matter.

¶26

It is informed that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 20.03.2014, the supply of the petroleum products to the retail outlet in question is restored and is continuing till date. In such circumstances it is directed that the respondent-IOCL shall not stop the supply of the petroleum products to the petitionerfirm till the final decision is passed on the claim of petitioner-firm. After the final decision is passed by the respondent-IOCL, the supply of petroleum products to the retail outlet in question will be governed by the said decision.

¶27

The application (IA No.2622/2014) is also disposed of and stay petition is also disposed of.

¶28

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶29

Gaurav/31

M/S. Shambhoo and Com. Filling Station v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Shambhoo and Com. Filling Station v. Indian Oil Corpn. 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

Smt. Anita Bairagi Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Manphool Ram Vs Ganganagar Kendriya Sah. Bank Ltd.andANR

Pukhraj Mewara Vs Municipal Board, Takhatgarh and Anr.

Smt. Kamla Bai and Ors. Vs Tej Singh and Ors.

Mohammad Ashfaq Vs Municipal Board Nagaur and Anr.

Satpal Singh and Ors. Vs State and Ors.