Dismissed

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Service Station v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC5 Jun 2009WP/10981/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the delay in disposing of a dealer termination appeal, directing the respondents to decide within four weeks and restraining appointment of a new dealer.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to dispose appeal within four weeks and restrain first respondent from appointing new permanent dealer.

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Service Station Vs M/s. Indian Oil… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10981 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Service Station Bommakal, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Ch. Adi Reddy S/o. Malla Reddy, 63 yrs, Occ: Business R/o. 8-3-680, Karimnagar, A.P.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, Naspur House, Road No. 5, Himayatnagar , Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Executive Director, Naspur House, Road No. 5, Himayatnagar , Hyderabad.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Manamus the action of the 2nd respondent in not disposing of the appeal as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Law against the Principles of Natural Justice and Consequently thereof by directing the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on dt. 10-22009 against the Termination notice issued dt. 30-1-2009 issued by 1st respondent and to pass

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.L.RAJU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RAGHUNANDAN

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.10981 of 2009

¶18

O R D E R :

¶19

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the second respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited in not disposing of the petitioner’s appeal as illegal and arbitrary.

¶20

2. Heard both sides.

¶21

3. The fact that the petitioner’s appeal against the notice, dated 30.1.2009, issued by the first respondent terminating the dealership agreement of the petitioner is pending before the second respondent is not in dispute.

¶22

4. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal by following the due process of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the first respondent is directed not to appoint any dealer on permanent basis in respect of the retail outlet in question. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

____________________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶24

05-06-2009. Msr/Ivd

¶25

THE HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.10981 of 2009

¶27

05-06-2009 (Msr)

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Service Station v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Service Station v. M/s. 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

M.Sathamma, Vs The Commissioner of Labour

Kondaveeti Raghunatha Reddy, Vs The Regional Deputy Director

B.Muralidhar, Vs The Director of School Education, Government of

Smt.Krishna Kumari Vs The Commissioner Greater Municipal Corporation of

Suri Prem Kumar Vs The STate rep.by Central Buerue of Investigation

M/s. Dachepalli Publishers Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its