$~26.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4811/2011, Cr.M.A No.10432/2011 (u/S 340 Cr.PC) & CM
No.9778/2011 (for stay).
MOTI RAM & COMPANY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Manoj Sharma & Mr. Anurag
Singh, Adv.
versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD .... Respondent
Through: Ms. Savita Rustogi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 05.09.2011
1. This order is in continuation of the earlier orders dated 13 th July, 2011, 15th July, 22nd July, 2011 and 11th August, 2011. The senior counsel for the petitioner has in support of the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a retail outlet, referred to the communication dated 6th September, 2006 of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to the various Public Sector Oil Companies laying down broad parameters/guidelines for operation of Company Owned Company Operated (COCO) retail outlets and providing for phasing out of temporary COCO retail outlets and offering the same to Letter of Intent (LOI) holders if available and otherwise on dealership basis. Attention is then invited to the counter affidavit filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) in W.P.(C) 2318/2008 where it was 1/-
stated that the dealer was required to be given preference over the LOI holder. It is thus contended that the petitioner as a dealer of the respondent HPCL is required to be given preference in resitement over the LOI holders.
2. I am unable to decipher any such right in favour of the petitioner. The respondent HPCL in its counter affidavit in the instant petition has stated that it has to arrange the land for LOI holders of 2006 under the Corpus Fund Scheme and one LOI holder of the year 2004 in the General Category under the old Policy and the petitioner is not entitled to any preferential right over the pending LOI holders. With reference to the averments in the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) 2318/2008, it is stated that the circumstances of the dealer who was given preference over the LOI holder were different in as much as she was a widow under the Defence Category Scheme. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any such preference. It is further pleaded that the petitioner had throughout been representing that it will make its own land available and was accommodated at Manesar on temporary basis and is not entitled to make any claim for any of the COCOs belonging to the respondent HPCL and to the detriment of the other eligible candidates. I may mention that the other eligible candidates in preference to whom the right is being claimed are also not before this Court.
2/-
3. In the circumstances, no direction to the respondent HPCL for allotment of any retail outlet to the petitioner can be given. The petitioner shall be however entitled to consideration of its case if any in accordance with Law/Policies of the respondent HPCL.
4. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed.
5. Cr.M.A. 10432/2011 has been filed averring falsehood in the counter affidavit filed. However the application is found to have been filed merely to delay the present proceedings and no case for issuing even notice thereof is made out.
No order as to costs.
Dasti under signature of court master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J SEPTEMBER 5, 2011 pp..
3/-