HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1086 of 2024
Rajesh Kumar ….....Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ….….Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel along with Mr. Ashish
Belwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Kanti Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/
Indian Oil Corporation.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court for a
direction to the respondents to decide the application
dated 18.12.2021 for reconstitution pending before
the respondents within stipulated time and further
not to take any decision in the matter of the show
cause notice dated 15.11.2023 issued by respondent
No.2 (Annexure No.9) till the disposal of the
reconstitution application dated 18.12.2021.
3. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary
details are that a ‘B’ Site Retail Outlet was allotted to
the petitioner at Amritpur, Patrampur Road, Jaspur,
District Udham Singh Nagar on 13.12.2018.
4. It is alleged by the petitioner that due to
development of paralytic symptoms on the petitioner,
he moved an application dated 18.12.2021 (Annexure
No.5) for reconstitution of the Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO
dealership by inducting the name of his nephew-
Akshay Sindhwani as co-proprietor of the ‘B’ site
Retail Outlet.
2
5. The said application was moved by the
petitioner under the Chapter “G. Reconstitution of
Commissioned Dealerships” as provided in the
guidelines of the respondent-Oil Corporation.
6. As per the contention of the petitioner, the
said application remained pending consideration,
but, suddenly, after a period of almost two years, a
show-cause notice was issued by the respondent No.2
on 15.11.2023 (Annexure No.9), whereby, the
petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the B-
Site Retail Outlet allotted to him, be not terminated.
The petitioner submitted his reply against the show-
cause notice on 01.12.2023 stating therein that the
application dated 18.12.2021 for reconstitution of the
dealership is pending consideration before the
respondents.
7. On 16.04.2024, an e-mail from the
respondent-Corporation was received by the
petitioner, in which, it has been mentioned by the
respondent-Corporation that pending investigation
against the petitioner, no decision could have been
taken on application dated 18.12.2021.
8. Now, the petitioner is before this Court.
9. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the
respondent-Oil Corporation submitted that the
petitioner resides in Russia along with his family and
when the said Retail Outlet was allotted to him, he
submitted an affidavit stating therein that he would
run this B-site Retail Outlet and now, he wants to
3
give it to somebody else, and, therefore, only for that
purpose, the application of reconstitution has been
sent back on 16.04.2024.
10. It is also contended by the learned counsel
for the respondents-Oil Corporation that the
application is not pending before it, the same has
been returned to the petitioner on 16.04.2024 and
the same would be considered once the investigation
is over.
11. I have considered the rival submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the terms and conditions of Chapter “G.
Reconstitution of Commissioned Dealerships”, Para 3
of the said Chapter G, is quoted below:
“3. The Sole Proprietor/all Partner(s) can resign from the
dealership after 3 years of holding dealership and
transfer his/her/their shareholding in favour of family
member(s)/existing partner(s)/outside partner(s).
However, in case of induction of outside category
partner(s) in SC/ST dealerships, the share of incoming
outside category partner(s) will be restricted to 25%.”
12. Since, the petitioner feeling indisposed due
to development of paralytic symptoms, has decided to
reconstitute the partnership with his real nephew
Akshay Sindhwani, by moving application on
18.12.2021, it is reflected from the record that for the
first time, instead of proceeding with the
reconstitution application dated 18.12.2021, the
respondent-Oil Corporation has issued show-cause
notice to the petitioner stating therein as to why the
dealership be not terminated. It would be within the
competence of the respondent-Corporation, in view of
their own terms and conditions as specified in
4
Chapter G of the guidelines that instead of issuing
show-cause notice, application dated 18.12.2021 of
the petitioner should be considered by the
respondents-Oil Corporation on merits. But, the
respondents-Oil Corporation failed to decide the
application and instead of deciding the application,
started an off-suit proceeding against the petitioner.
13. Be that as it may, the controversy can be
resolved by taking a positive decision on the
application dated 18.12.2021 moved by the petitioner
within stipulated period under the Chapter G of the
guidelines as referred above.
14. Accordingly, writ petition is finally disposed
of with a direction to the respondents-Oil Corporation
to take an appropriate decision on the reconstitution
application dated 18.12.2021 moved by the petitioner
for the purpose of inducting his nephew-Akshay
Sindhwani as partner dealership within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order. In between, no further action shall be
taken against the petitioner consequent upon the
show-cause notice dated 15.11.2023 issued by
respondent No.2, till the disposal of the reconstitution
application dated 18.12.2021.
15. Pending application(s), if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.04.2024
PN