Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Rahul Manubhai Raval

Vikram Nath, CJ

Heard Shri Munjaal M. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, learned counsel for Thakkar & Pahwa Advocates on behalf of the respondent.

Ms. Pahwa, learned counsel has filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent, which is taken on record.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent - original petitioner and remanded the matter to the respondent - Oil Company to take a fresh decision. The operative part of the order as contained in para 8 and 9, read as follows:-

"8. In view of the aforesaid fact situation, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-Oil Company to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to put up his case and make out his eligibility in terms of selection guidelines. The Respondent Oil Company is therefore directed to Reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh without taking into consideration the impugned communication and procedure of cancelling the selection to the petitioner. The exercise to be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is directed that while undertaking such exercise, the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing.

The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs."

Since the matter stands remanded to the Oil Company, we put a direct question to Mr. Bhatt, as to why the Oil Company has preferred this appeal as it has to take a fresh decision after affording opportunity to the respondent. The only objection raised by Mr. Bhatt is to the effect that while remanding the matter, the learned Single Judge has made an observation that the Oil Company while taking a fresh decision would not take into consideration the communication impugned in the writ petition and the procedure of canceling the selection of the petitioner. According to him, if this observation of the learned Single Judge is allowed to remain, apparently, the Oil Company would not be able to take a fresh independent decision on the basis of the material that the respondent would provide under the direction of the learned Single Judge. According to him, this observation also compels the Oil Company to take a decision in a particular fashion, which does not serve the purpose of remand and if the effect of this is allowed to stand, the entire exercise would be futile exercise by the Oil Company.

The submission has substance and we accordingly, clarify that the Oil Company would take a fresh decision in light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 06.08.2019. However, the observation that the impugned communication and the procedure of cancellation of selection of the petitioner would not be taken into consideration, shall remain in abeyance and would not be given effect by the Oil Company while taking a fresh decision. All other observations made by the learned Single Judge would be applicable as contained in the impugned order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

In view of the order passed in the main appeal, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.