High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur) dismissed a writ restoration application seeking to revive CWP No.7138/2016. Despite the petitioner's submission that the granted Letter of Intent and its consequent retail outlet are operational, the single-judge bench denied restoration.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Restoration No. 110 / 2017
Smt. Anita Bairagi W/o Shri Mangaldas, Aged 29 years, Resident of Opposite Star Automobile, Mahi Sarovar Nagar, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Teja Ram Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order
10/07/2017
The instant writ restoration application has been filed on behalf of petitioner with a prayer for restoring S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7138/2016 (Smt. Anita Bairagi Vs. IOCL & Ors.), which was decided on account of peremptory order passed by this Court on 05.05.2017.
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7138/2016, the petitioner has essentially prayed for quashing the Letter of Intent (hereinafter
(2 of 3)
[WRES-110/2017]
referred to as ‘the LOI’) dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure-5 of SB CWP No.7138/2016) issued in favour of private respondent No.4 - Shri Rahul Gokharu.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that after issuance of LOI dated 25.11.2014 in favour of the private respondent No.4 - Shri Rahul Gokharu, retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IOCL’) has already been established and the same is operational.
It is noticed that this Court vide order dated 03.11.2016 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7138/2016 has ordered for issuance of notice to the private respondent No.4 - Shri Rahul Gokharu, however, despite giving several opportunities to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in that writ petition, the notice of the private respondent No.4 has not been filed and ultimately this Court vide order dated 05.05.2017 has granted one week’s time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file requisites and also ordered that if the same will not be filed within stipulated period, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.
Pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7138/2016, requisites for issuance of notice to the private respondent No.4 has not been filed in that writ petition, consequently, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7138/2016 was automatically dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and particularly taking into consideration the fact that pursuant to the LOI issued in favour of the private respondent No.4 – Shri Rahul
(3 of 3)
[WRES-110/2017]
Gokharu, retail outlet of the IOCL has already been established and is in operation, I am not inclined to allow this writ restoration application.
Hence, this writ restoration application is dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ restoration application filed to restore a dismissed writ petition should be allowed given the establishment of the impugned outlet.
Whether the failure to file requisites for notice justifies the maintenance of the restoration application despite the commercial reality.
If the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground that the Letter of Intent is no longer contestable due to operational establishment.
Smt. Anita Bairagi
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Shri Rahul Gokharu
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
