Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dinkal Agarwal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Another - WRIT - C No. 14468 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4646 (16 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as Co-owned contractor operated (hereinafter referred to as the ''Coco') dealership for retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation at Khair district Aligarh.

The averments made in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner was awarded the contract for a period of one year w.e.f. 19th January, 2005 pending appointment of the regular dealer. This period was extended for a further period of one year up to 18th January, 2007 or till a regular selection of the dealer whichever is earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Corporation has not extended the period and intends to replace the  ad hoc arrangement in favour of the petitioner by another dealer.

Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has, however, submitted that in view of the revised policy framed by the Government the ad hoc arrangement can be made only under certain conditions and in case any ad hoc appointment is to be continued then the petitioner shall be given the contract.

In this view of the matter, as the petitioner does not have a vested right for extension of the contract period, no relief can be granted for extending the period of contract but in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, it is made clear that in the event, the Corporation intends to grant ad hoc contract, it shall be given to the petitioner.

Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is disposed of.

Date: 16.3.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.