Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. vs Vipul Anand Singh

Mr. Kar, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Nag, learned Advocate, appear in support of the appeal and the connected application.

The sole respondent/ the petitioner is represented by Mr. Saha Roy, learned Counsel with Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate.

The claim of the writ petitioner is in respect of the grant of a retail outlet under the appellants/Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short IOCL) which

has proceeded before the Hon'ble Court on the basis of at least two writ petitions. It can be culled from the submissions of the parties as well as the

materials on record that both the writ petitions permitted the sole private respondent to participate in the selection process. It is the stand taken by Mr.

Kar that the first writ petition, that is WP 25807(W) of 2018 (for short WP I), is still pending and concerns the basic eligibility of the sole respondent to

be a dealer of a retail outlet under IOCL. It is also the stand of learned Senior Counsel for IOCL that having regard to the fact that the father of the

sole respondent is a holder of a Letter of Intent (LOI) under the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), the Guidelines of selection disqualify

the sole respondent from at all applying for a dealership.

Per contra, Mr. Saha Roy submits that the sole respondent was allowed by an interim order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 21st December, 2018

passed in WP I to participate in a selection process for only a dealer controlled pump. The order of 21 st December, 2018 was carried in appeal by the

BPCL and the Hon'ble Appellate Bench by order dated 21st January, 2019 did not find any infirmity with the order passed by the Hon'ble Single

Bench dated 21st December, 2018. The Hon'ble Appellate Bench held that such order was a prima facie one, not final and, such has been clarified in

the said order itself. Thereby, the Hon'ble Appellate Bench disposed of the appeal against the interim order dated 21st December, 2018.

In view of the disposal of the appeal, the parties were remanded to the Hon'ble Single Bench for exchanging Affidavits in aid of a final adjudication.

Mr. Kar submits that considering that WP I is still pending for consideration, the Hon'ble Single Bench vide its order as impugned in this appeal dated

16th March, 2021 in WPA 7257 of 2019 (for short WP II), which is the second writ petition of the respondent No. 1, mandatorily directed the IOCL to

consider the application of the sole respondent for grant of the dealership limiting such consideration to the delay, if any, in filing such application. It is

thus submitted by IOCL that since the merit of the issue of the eligibility of the respondent No. 1 to qualify for a dealership is still pending adjudication

in WP I, the restraint imposed on IOCL by the order impugned dated 16th March, 2021 from IOCL from considering any other point on merits except

the alleged delay in furnishing the required documents by respondent No. 1, is palpably erroneous and therefore deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, Mr. Saha Roy submits that WP II was filed challenging the communication dated 15 th February, 2021 addressed by the IOCL to the

respondent No. 1. By the said communication the IOCL did not raise any issue on merits but only demanded the specified documents from the

respondent No.1. Since the respondent No. 1 was delayed by one day in submitting such documents and, such has been recorded by the order

impugned dated 16th March, 2021, such order of the Hon'ble Single Bench must be allowed to stand since it is to be presumed that IOCL did not think

it necessary to raise any other issue on merits, except the time factor involved in receiving the specified documents from the respondent No. 1.

Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is persuaded to hold the view that the two writ petitions cannot be allowed to

be adjudicated independently of each other. Since the points of eligibility of the respondent No. 1 as well as the time factor involved in submitting

documents have merged at the hearing of this appeal, this Court finds it appropriate to hear out the appeal comprehensively on both grounds.

Accordingly, let the records of both WP I (WP 25807(W) of 2018) and WP II ( WP 7257 of 2019) be placed before this Court at the hearing of the

appeal.

The appellant in MAT 524 of 2021 is directed to prepare the requisite number of Informal Paper Book(s) incorporating all documents which were part

of the pleadings in both WP I and WP II (supra). Let such Informal Paper Book(s) be prepared not later than a period of three weeks from this date.

Let an advance copy of the Informal Paper Book(s) be supplied to the respondent.

At the end of the period as directed above to prepare Informal Paper Book(s), parties shall be at liberty to mention forthwith for enlistment strictly

upon notice to each other.

Pending hearing of this appeal, this Court is satisfied that the sole respondent deserves an identical protection as granted by the Hon'ble Single Bench

vide its order dated 8th April, 2019 in WP II.

The interim order reads as follows:

in the meantime, respondents are restrained from taking any further steps for allotment of the concerned retail outlet in favour of any third party.

It is accordingly directed that the protection as granted by the interim order dated 8th April, 2019 in WP II the (supra), be continued till the pendency

of this appeal. In the event the parties are in requirement of further affidavits/ supplementary affidavits to WP I or WP II, they shall be free to file

such affidavit/supplementary affidavit with advance copies served on each other and incorporate the same in the Informal Paper Book(s) within the

time prescribed by this order.

The application being IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 stands accordingly disposed of.

Affidavit of Service filed in Court today be retained with the records.

Parties to act on a server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.