Appeal challenging direction to issue letter of intent dismissed without examination as petitioner operated pump since 2011 after lower court direction in connected appeal before this court.
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
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 536/2009
Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr.
----Appellants
| Versus |
|---|
Uma Ram & Anr.
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Mr. Bharat |
|---|---|
| Rajpurohit,Mr. Sajjan Singh | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia |
| For UOI | : Mr. T.C. Sharma |
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
10/12/2019
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
The present appeal has come to be filed by the Indian Oil Corporation challenging the order and judgment dated 12.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, inter alia, allowing the writ application and setting aside the order dated 16.11.2007 under Annexure-7 to the writ application and further directing the appellant herein to issue the letter of intent forthwith.
The appellant sought to file the present appeal, but while the appeal was pending before the Court, the letter of intent came to be issued in favour of the writ petitioner (private respondent herein) in the year 2010. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner had filed contempt applications before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
(2 of 3)
[SAW-536/2009]
although the letter of intent was issued to the private respondent pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge (which is subject matter of challenge herein), the said letter of intent was made conditional upon the outcome of the present appeal.
Admittedly, the private respondent based on the letter of intent issued by the appellant has been operating petrol pump since 2011 and substantial investment has been made by the private respondent in setting up the retail outlet. It is also undisputed that the private respondent was considered as number one in the list of applicants in the panel prepared on merits.
However, learned counsel for the appellant Indian Oil Corporation states that the challenge to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge raises further fundamental issues such as to whether amendments issued from time to time to the guidelines framed by the Petroleum Corporation or the Department of Energy would apply to the pending applications or not?
Considering the factual situation as noted hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the substantial investment has been made by the private respondents and the private respondent providing services to the public at large was further considered by the committee as number one in the selected panel.
In view of the aforesaid facts and further considering the fact that a connected writ appeal i.e. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.503/2009 had come to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.08.2018, we do not find any reason to entertain the present appeal any further and while dismissing the same this
(3 of 3)
[SAW-536/2009]
Court leaves the issues raised by the appellant open for consideration in an appropriate case.
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
22-MohitTak/-
Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr.
Uma Ram & Anr.
Indrajit Mahanty
Pushendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
