Dismissed

M/S. Jyoti Traders v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Rajasthan HC28 Aug 2023CW/9323/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging blacklisting orders imposed on a transporter by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for alleged malpractice involving vehicle damage and tempering, holding that the respondents' investigation findings of established fault provided no cause for interference.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of as no cause of interference was made out.

M/S. Jyoti Traders Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:27213]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9316/2023

¶4

M/s. Jyoti Traders, Through Its Proprietor Ramkishor Daga S/o Bhanwar Lal Daga, Aged About 47 Years, Having Its Office At Opp. Government Hospital, Osian Road, Marwar Mathania, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Through Its Executive Director And State Head, Rajasthan State Office, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief General Manager (Ops), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rajasthan State Office, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9323/2023

¶12

M/s. Jyoti Traders, Through Its Proprietor Ramkishor Daga S/o Bhanwar Lal Daga, Age 47 Years, Having Its Office At Opp. Government Hospital, Osian Road, Marwar Mathania, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Through Its Executive Director And State Head, Rajasthan State Office, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶16

Chief General Manager (Ops), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rajasthan State Office, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora.

¶19

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

[2023:RJ-JD:27213]

[CW-9316/2023]

(2 of 5)

28/08/2023

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9316/2023:-

¶26

"(i) the order dated 16.06.2023 (Annexure-9) issued by the respondent No.2 may be delcared illegal and the same be quashed & set aside."

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a transporter of Bulk Petroleum Products via Truck and Tankers for the respondents Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner vide these two writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the authorities of IOCL, by which, they have imposed certain penalties.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while the transportation was going on, there were two occasions for which the notices have been given and in accordance with the norms, two blacklistings have been done on the same date, which is 16.06.2023.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that tempering of the fittings, which is being alleged, are in fact not correct because in one of the incident, the whole of the vehicle got burnt and even so much so that the person, who tried to extinguish the fire himself could not survive, due to the burns.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fiarly taken this Court to the Oil Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines/Norms, which is

[2023:RJ-JD:27213]

[CW-9316/2023]

(3 of 5)

at page 58 of the writ petition and the relevant part of which is reproduced as follows:-

¶35

"During the validity of transportation contract, in the first instance of blacklisting for a Contractor, as per the above provisions, damage of Rs. 1 Lakh will be imposed on the Contractor apart from blacklisting of the involved TT. In second instance of blacklisting, a damage of Rs 3 Lakhs will be imposed and the involved TT will be blacklisted. In third instance of blacklisting, a damage of Rs 5 Lakhs will be imposed and 25% of the remaining TTs will be blacklisted alongwith the involved TT. In fourth instance, a penalty of Rs 8 Lakhs will be imposed and 50% of remaining TTs will be blacklisted along with involved TT. In case of any further incident of malpractice, the entire fleet will be blacklisted and the SD will be forfeited and the transportation contract will be terminated. The percentage of TT blacklisted will be in proportion of own & attached offered and will be rounded off to the higher numerical."

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner is not at present concerned about the penalty of Rs.1 lac and 3 lacs beacuse he is a long time transporter, but such blacklisting made twice would render him to be punished for 3rd instance, which will be an extremely harsh imposition in case so made.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this trade, there are risks of certain errors, and thus, the petitioner is extremely cautious, as it will expose him to the penalty No.3 enshrined as above.

[2023:RJ-JD:27213]

[CW-9316/2023]

(4 of 5)

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the welding itself has taken place, on the rear side of the vehicle, whereas the reasons of the fire in the Writ Petition No.9323/2023 is the battery in front. Learned counsel further submits that in case the blacklisting is not interfered with by this Court, the petitioner shall suffer consequences for which he is not responsible, as he is an honest transporter and has long time rendered his services to the respondents.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that there is a mechanism of dealing with the transportion and which is a uniform unit and the norms quoted above are part of those standard parameters/norms.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the factual matrix of the case are writ large in the documents, and thus, any interference of this Court on the ground of suspicion or another interpretation of the whole issue would be detrimental to the long term prospects of imposing discipline amongst the transporters.

¶44

After hearing learend counsel for the parties at length, this Court does not find any reason to make any inteference in the basic facts whereas the tempering, which has been reported through photographs and reports made by the concerned investigation team. Once such tempering has been established by the respondents, this Court in ordinary circumstances does not contradict the factual matrix of the tempering in question, which has been established by the respondents through their investigation mechanism. The delay, the fire and the other reasons which have been empathetically laid down by the learned counsel

[2023:RJ-JD:27213]

[CW-9316/2023]

(5 of 5)

for the petitioner need not be gone into by this Court because the ground position and the ground facts cannot be ascertained by this Court in these circumstances.

¶49

This Court also finds that there is a standard mechanism, which has been adopted by the respondents for dealing with such kind of situation, so much so that the defaulters are given punishment in increasing order, so as to enable them to be more cautious while dealing with the trade of transportation in question. The parameters/criteria laid down by the respondents, which have been reproduced above, was standard and equally applicable to all.

¶50

In view of the above, no cause of interference is made out in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶51

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶52

40-41-Jitender

M/S. Jyoti Traders v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Jyoti Traders v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smc Foods Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan

Subhash Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Kalu Ram Vs Jag Ram

Sambal Shikshan and Jan Sahyog Samittee Vs State of Rajasthan

Kesar Institute of Animal Husbandry Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Sai Institute of Veterinary Vs State of Rajasthan