Page No.# 1/3 vs The Oil India Corporation Limited ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1920 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010100452021




                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WP(C)/3946/2021

         BIJU MAHANTA BORSAIKIA @ BIJU BORSAIKIA AND ANR
         W/O- LT. DHANANJOY BORSAIKIA, R/O- NEW SETTLEMENT AREA, PLOT
         NO. X-66, DIGBOI TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. DIGBOI, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM,
         PIN- 786171

         2: BIKRANT BORSAIKIA
          S/O- LT. DHANANJOY BORSAIKIA
          R/O- NEW SETTLEMENT AREA
          PLOT NO. X-66
          DIGBOI TOWN
          P.O. AND P.S. DIGBOI
          DIST.- TINSUKIA
         ASSAM
          PIN- 78617

         VERSUS

         THE OIL INDIA CORPORATION LIMITED AND 4 ORS
         REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, PLOT NO. 3079/3, SADIQ
         NAGAR, J.B. TITO MARG, NEW DELHI- 110049

         2:THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
         ASSAM OIL DIVISION
          REP. BY THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER
          DIGBOI
          DIST.- TINSUKIA
         ASSAM
          PIN- 786171

         3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
          NORTH EAST INTEGRATED STATE OFFICE
          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
          BAMUNIMAIDAM
          GHY-21
                                                                                 Page No.# 2/3


            4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (LPG-S)
             INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD.
             SECTOR-3 NOONMATI
             GHY-21

            5:THE SENIOR MANAGER (LPG)
            TINSUKIA
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78612

Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR. B C DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I O C




                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

                                           ORDER

Date : 20.8.2021

Heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

A Gas agency stood in the name of late Dhanananjoy Borsaikia, the husband and father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Late Dhanananjoy Borsaikia was allegedly kidnapped and since his date of kidnap there was no trace of said late Dhanananjoy Borsaikia. Thereafter though initially the agency was operated by the petitioner No. 1 however objections were raised by the mother of the deceased Dhanananjoy Borsaikia. In the meantime the petitioners preferred Title Suit No. 2/2007 before the learned Civil Judge Tinsukia seeking for the declaration that late Dhanananjoy Borsaikia be declared to be presumed dead. The learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia vide Judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009 declared Dhanananjoy Borsaikia as dead. A move was initiated for reconstitution of the said agency under the respondent IOC ltd. inducting the petitioners and mother of late Dhanananjoy Borsaikia. The said mother Bidya Prabha Borsaikia allegedly obstructed the operation of the said gas agency purportedly at the instance of her other sons . Bidya Prabha Borsaikia died on 21.11.2019 . The petitioners brought to the notice of the respondent IOC Page No.# 3/3

about the death of late Bidya Prabha Borsaikia following which letter dated 12.1.2021 issued by the DGM(LPG-S) Tinsukia was addressed to the petitioners thereby informing the proposal for reconstitution of the distributorship with the both petitioners as partner was rejected. In the said letter dated 12.1.2021 it was also directed to the petitioners to submit no objection certificate by the legal heirs of late Bidya Prabha Borsaikia. As against the said letter it was informed to the respondent IOC that there was no necessity of the legal heirs of late Bidya Prabha Borsaikia to be brought in the reconstitution inasmuch the original distributorship was only in the name of late Dhanananjoy Borsaikia. The said representation dated 19.1.2021 was in terms of the order dated 12.1.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 5753/2019.The said representation dated 19.1.2021 was rejected vide order dated 9.2.2021 thereby seeking for a fresh reconstitution proposal including the legal heirs of late Bidya Prabha Borsaikia or provide no objection certificate from them. It is submitted that the brothers of both Dhananjoy Borsaikia are Class II legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as such on the death of Bidya Prabha the Class II legal heirs cannot be inducted under the law. Being aggrieved by the said action on the part of the respondent IOC the petitioners are before this seeking appropriate direction.

In view of the issue involved in this writ petition let notice be issued.

Mr. A. Jahid, learned Standing Counsel, IOC accepts notice for all the respondents. Necessary extra copies be served on the learned counsel. Notices are made returnable on 15.9.2021.

Mr. Jahid shall file affidavit in opposition at the earliest.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant