Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2919 (ALL)

Sadhana Pundeer v. Union of India & Ors.

2012-12-17

HET SINGH YADAV, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2012
Het Singh Yadav J.;— It appears that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. issued an Advertisement published on 12.10.2011 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership in respect of various locations mentioned in the said Advertisement including the location in question mentioned at Serial No. 141 in the said Advertisement. The petitioner as well as other persons submitted their applications pursuant to the said Advertisement for allotment of dealership in respect of location in question. The petitioner as well as other applicants were called for interview on 13.9.2012. After the interview result was declared copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. As per the said result the Respondent No. 4 was placed at first position in the merit while the petitioner was placed at second position in the merit. The petitioner thereupon made Representation/Complaint dated 17.9.2012 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition) purporting to be under Clause 18 of the Brochure issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for Selection of Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet Dealers. We have heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.R. Shukla learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of instructions received by him states that pursuant to the Representation/Complaint dated 17.9.2012 submitted by the petitioner investigation is going on. In the meantime the petitioner sought certain informations under the Right to Information Act 2005. However the said informations were declined to the petitioner on account of on-going investigation pursuant to the Representation/Complaint made by the petitioner. Copy of Reply given to the petitioner in regard to prayer for supplying informations under the Right to Information Act 2005 has been filed as Annexure- 6 to the Writ Petition. Sri Manish Kumar Nigam learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Representation/Complaint was made on 17.9.2012 and sufficient time has passed but the decision has not been taken as yet by the concerned authority. Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that the investigation pursuant to the Representation/Complaint submitted by the petitioner will be completed at the earliest and the decision in regard to the Representation/Complaint submitted by the petitioner would be taken expeditiously. Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that the investigation pursuant to the Representation/Complaint submitted by the petitioner will be completed at the earliest and the decision in regard to the Representation/Complaint submitted by the petitioner would be taken expeditiously. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the interest of justice would be sub-served by disposing of the Writ Petition with the following directions: (i) Within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order the petitioner will make an application before the Respondent No. 3 along with certified copy of this order as well as copy of the Representation/Complaint dated 17.9.2012. (ii) On receipt of the aforesaid application along with documents mentioned above the Respondent No. 3 or such other officer of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to whom the matter is referred by the Respondent No. 3 will proceed to consider the Representation/Complaint of the petitioner and take decision thereon in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said application along with the documents mentioned above after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the Respondent No. 4 as well as all other concerned persons and by passing a speaking order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits. _____________