Disposed

Jawan Automobiles, Dealer v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Rajasthan HC21 Oct 2020CW/12383/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of the writ petition challenging an inspection report and Show Cause Notice regarding dealership conduct. The Court allowed the petitioner two weeks to file a reply to the notice before it considers further action.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file reply to the Show Cause Notice within two weeks; respondents directed to consider the reply and pass a reasoned order.

Jawan Automobiles, Dealer Vs Indian Oil Corporation… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12383/2020

¶3

Jawan Automobiles, Dealer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Road No. 3, Jhunjhunu Through Its Proprietor Smt. Sumitra Devi Wife Of Kehar Singh Katewa, Aged 78 Years, R/o Katewa Sadan, Road No. 3, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Registered Address G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 (India)

¶7

Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Jaipur Divisional Office, 1St Floor Lic Investment Building, Phase - Ii, Near Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

Executive Director And State Head, Rajasthan State Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Bhawan, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶9

General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Bhawan, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶10

Naveen Sodhi, Sr. Sales Officer (Rs), Sikar - Ii, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Sikar, Rajasthan

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.RP Vijay (through video conferencing)

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak (through video conferencing)

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶15

Order

¶16

21/10/2020

¶17

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the inspection report dated 23^rd June, 2020 as well as impugned Show Cause Notice dated 25^th September, 2020.

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CW-12383/2020]

¶20

On perusal of the inspection report dated 23^rd June, 2020, this Court finds that the respondents have carried out some inspection on the petrol pump of the petitioner and some deficiencies are said to be found in the inspection report.

¶21

The perusal of the impugned Notice dated 25^th September, 2020 further shows that reply of the petitioner in response to the inspection report was not found to be satisfactory and a Show Cause Notice has been given as why action, as per the MDG and Dealership Agreement may not be taken against the petitioner. The respondents have sought reply within ten days and if reply is not found satisfactory, they will inform the petitioner to take necessary action, including, termination of dealership agreement.

¶22

This Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy this Court with regard to availability of writ jurisdiction against Show Cause Notice.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inspection report has been prepared in absence of the petitioner and moreover, there are no discrepancies, as have been alleged in the inspection report.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that the entire inspection report has been prepared in gross violation of principle of natural justice.

¶25

Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged discrepancies cannot be said to be committed by the petitioner and baseless allegations have been levelled against the petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel Mr.Sandeep Pathak, appearing on behalf of the respondents has filed reply and also raised objection about maintainability of the writ petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Sandeep Pathak submitted that instead of filing writ petition, the petitioner had an

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

[CW-12383/2020]

¶30

alternative remedy of going to the Arbitrator, as per the terms of the agreement.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

¶32

for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

This Court finds that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity initially for giving response to the inspection report and the petitioner also filed reply to the said report.

¶34

This Court further finds that the respondents, after considering reply of the petitioner, have formed an opinion that reply is not satisfactory and as such, the petitioner has been given a Show Cause Notice before taking any action in the matter.

¶35

This Court finds that the petitioner has adequate remedy of filing his objection before the Authorities and the petitioner is always free to take all objections, challenging the inspection report as well as non-consideration of defence in proper manner.

¶36

This Court further finds that the respondents are also required to consider the reply/pleas, which are filed by the petitioner in support of its case and after considering the same, they are required to pass a speaking and reasoned order.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioner to file reply to the Show Cause Notice, if this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶38

This Court disposes of the present writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 25^th September, 2020 within a period of two weeks and after receiving the reply, the respondents will take into account the reply/pleas taken by the petitioner and will pass a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved against any order, if passed prejudice to

¶39

(4 of 4)

¶40

[CW-12383/2020]

¶41

their rights, they are always free to challenge the same, as per law.

¶42

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶43

Preeti Asopa /Monika/14

Jawan Automobiles, Dealer v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawan Automobiles, Dealer v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

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

M/S Abhishek Construction and Tollways Vs the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd.

Sua Lal Saini S/O Late Shri Dhonkal Ram Saini Vs the Jaipur Development Authority

Yadvendra Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Mahendra Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Zee Laboratories Ltd. Vs the Managing Director, Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited

Dr. Ashok Gupta, Son of Shri.Krishna Swaroop Gupta, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhajan Lal Khichi S/O Shri Magatu Ram Khichi Vs State of Rajasthan