Moti Ram & Company vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 4328 Del

$~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/-