Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIRENDRA DEO versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Virendra Deo v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 29536 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10398 (25 May 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29536 of 2006

Virendra Deo Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.

~~~~

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed against the show cause notice dated 14.2.2006 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ''Corporation') to the petitioner requiring him to submit a reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why action including termination of distributorship should not be taken in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the agreement.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Samar Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 2144 of 2001 against the order dated 12.12.2000 by which the distributorship agreement dated 28.3.1994 was terminated forthwith. This petition was allowed by us by a detailed judgment and order dated 28.9.2004 and the order dated 12.12.2000 was set aside. It was, however, left open to the Corporation to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The records indicate that thereafter the Corporation passed another order dated 12.7.2005 terminating the distributorship of the petitioner relying on the same show cause notice and the reply without issuing any proper show cause as was required to be done under judgment and order dated 28.9.2004. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 57978 of 2005. This petition was also allowed with the following observations:-

"In the circumstances, as suggested by Sri P. Padia, instead of keeping the matter pending for the purpose of filing counter affidavit, we allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 12.7.2005 (annexure 1 to this writ petition). It will be open to the respondents to reconsider the matter and to issue fresh proper and detailed show cause notice enclosing therewith copies of material proposed to be relied upon against the petitioners and after allowing the petitioners a reasonable time to submit reply, to pass fresh reasoned order after considering reply of the petitioners, if any."

It is pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court that the Corporation has now issued a fresh detailed show cause notice dated 14.2.2006. The petitioner, instead of filing a reply to the aforesaid notice, has filed this petition after a lapse of about three and a half months from the date of issuance of the notice.

Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of objections to the issuance of the show cause notice. Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the Corporation has, however, vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that it should not be entertained at this stage as it is directed merely against the show cause notice.

We find considerable force in the contention advanced by Sri Prakash Padia and are, therefore, not inclined to examine the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the show cause notice. The petitioner can raise all such objections in the reply to be filed against the show cause notice and we have no reason to doubt that the same shall be considered in accordance with law by the Corporation.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/- 25.5.2006

Sharma


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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