Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7896 of 2014. Case: Geeta Devi Vs The Union of India and Ors.. High Court of Patna (India)

Case NumberCivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7896 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Ashish Giri, Advocate
JudgesVikash Jain, J.
IssueCommercial Law
Judgement DateApril 08, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Patna (India)

Judgment:

Vikash Jain, J.

  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

  2. Interlocutory Application No. 564 of 2016 has been filed for amendment of the relief portion of the writ petition in view of subsequent developments whereby the dealership has been awarded to the Respondent No. 5 with whom the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short "the IOCL") has entered into an agreement dated 12.05.2015, by incorporating the following prayers:

    "1(vii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the agreement entered into by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation with the private respondent No. 5 Sri Rakesh Kumar bearing Agreement dated 12.05.2015 by which the respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Dealer for retail sale/supply of petrol/diesel Kisan Seva Kendra (Rural Retail Outlet) Dealership in Jogaulia, District East Chamapran.

    1(viii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 08.04.2014 in relation to the award of the dealership after directing the authorities to produce the same.

    1(ix) To treat the pleadings and annexures in the present interlocutory application as part of the main writ application."

  3. Having regard to the nature of prayers, the Interlocutory Application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment in the writ petition.

  4. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-7) issued by the Respondent General Manager, IOCL., by which it has been held that the allegation made by the petitioner vide representation dated 04.02.2013 and 05.02.2013 is misconceived; to declare that allotment of full marks (35) granted by the Interview Committee to the Respondent No. 5 Rakesh Kumar under the heading of capability to provide infrastructure and facility is contrary to the norms of evaluating the marks provided in the brochure, inasmuch as the Respondent No. 5 Rakesh Kumar does not have clear title to the land; to direct the authorities to proceed under Clause 18(ii)(a) of the brochure and after declaring the selection process of Rakesh Kumar to be not in accordance with the guidelines, re-evaluate the merit panel and award the dealership to the petitioner; and for connected reliefs.

  5. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.08.2011 issued by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT