Disposed

K.Santosh , K.Santosh Goud, v. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Telangana HC16 Mar 2012WP/4754/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dealership award procedures. Court disposed of petition, directing GR Cell to examine pending representation within six weeks and halt new LOIs. Respondents may act thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Dealership Grievance Redressal Cell to dispose petitioner's representation within six weeks and restrain issuance of LOI to other applicants pending such disposal.

K.Santosh , K.Santosh Goud, Vs The Indian… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4754 of 2012

¶3

Date : 16.03.2012

¶4

Between :

¶5

K. Santosh @ K.Santosh Goud.

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai, rep. by its Managing Director & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4754 of 2012

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

¶13

Pursuant to the notification dated 21.10.2011, issued by respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has applied for dealership of retail outlet at Keesara to Shamirpet road in Ranga Reddy District, which is at Serial No.129 in the notification. It is the grievance of the petitioner that while awarding marks, respondents have not considered certain aspects with regard to the source of income and the immovable properties of the petitioner. It is his case that having regard to the documents filed by him, he is entitled for 8 more marks than the awarded marks of 83.92. It is his case that without examining the representation made by him in this regard, respondents 1 and 2 are taking further steps for award of contract in favour of respondents 3 and 4.

¶14

When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited that the petitioner has already submitted a representation before the Dealership Grievance Redressal Cell constituted by the Corporation itself and the same is being examined. It is stated that as per the guidelines, when such representation is filed

¶15

before the Dealership Grievance Redressal Cell, unless such representation is examined, LOI will not be issued to any other applicant. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the representation, dated 15^th February 2012, filed by the petitioner before the Dealership Grievance Redressal Cell.

¶16

In view of pendency of the representation made by the petitioner, at this stage, it is not necessary to examine the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition. As it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited that pending examination of the petitioner’s representation LOI will not be issued to any of the applicants, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition placing on record the said submission.

¶17

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Dealership Grievance Redressal Cell of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and pending consideration of such representation, no other applicant shall be given any LOI. It is made clear that after disposal of the representation made by the petitioner, it is open for respondents 1 and 2 to take steps in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is

¶18

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶19

___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶20

16^th March 2012 ajr

K.Santosh , K.Santosh Goud, v. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Santosh , K.Santosh Goud, v. The 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

Smt. Jasthi Aruna, Vs The Revenue Divisonal officer

Kothapalli Srihari Raju Vs The Commissioner of Police

Shaik Younus Vs Station House Officer, P.S., Narsapur, Medak District

Smt.Mallidi Ashwini Vs The Government of Ap., rep by its Principal Secretary

Mohd. Abdul Ghani Quraishi Vs The Commissioner of Police

M/s.P.Anil Kumar, Vs The Manager