Page No.# 1/4 vs Kaushik Bora And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2168 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/4 vs Kaushik Bora And Anr on 22 January, 2025

                                                                 Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010235562024




                                                          undefined

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

                            Case No. : WA/4/2025

         INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND 3 ORS
         A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G9, ALL
         YAVER JUNG MARG BANDRA(EAST) MUMBAI 400051

         2: GENERAL MANAGER

          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
          NORTHEAST INTEGRATED STATE OFFICE EAST POINT TOWER
          BAMUNIMAIDAM
          GUWAHATI 21

         3: THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAILS SALES MANAGER

          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
          SECTOR 3
          NOONMATI
          KAMRUP M GUWAHATI 20

         4: SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAILS SALES MANAGER

          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
          SECTOR 3
          NOONMATI
          KAMRUP M GUWAHATI 2

         VERSUS

         KAUSHIK BORA AND ANR
         S/O LATE DEKA KUMAR BORA,
         RESIDENT OG GS ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI , KAMRUP M ASSAM
         781007

         2:UNION OF INDIA
                                                                         Page No.# 2/4


           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM
           AND OIL AND NATURAL GAS
           GOVT. OF INDIA
           SANSAD MARG
           NEW DELH

For petitioner/appellant(s) :       Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
                                    Mr. P. Bharadwaj, Advocate

For respondent(s)               :   Mr. R. Devi, CGC

Mr. D.J. Das, Advocate

- BEFORE -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

22.01.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

Mr. D. J. Das, learned counsel has submitted that Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel has filed a Caveat in this matter on behalf of respondent No. 1.

In the first round, when the matter was taken up today, Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel was present. However, in the Second round Mr. D.J. Das has entered appearance on behalf of Mr. N. Gautam and has submitted that Mr. N. Gautam is out of station and, therefore, the matter may be adjourned to 30.01.2025.

This intra-court writ appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4712/2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and has set aside the order dated 12.07.2013 terminating the retail outlet dealership of petroleum product owned by the respondent No. 1 herein, while observing that the seizing Page No.# 3/4

and sealing of the dispensing unit of the retail out of the respondent No. 1 herein was not conducted by an authorised officer.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the search and seizure of the retail outlet of the respondent No. 1, the dispensing unit of the retail outlet was found fitted with unauthorised foreign equipment, which may result in less supply of petroleum product to the consumers.

It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that it was not the case of the respondent No. 1 before the learned Single Judge that the dispensing unit of the retail outlet of the respondent No. 1 was not fitted with unauthorised equipment, but the only ground raised by the respondent No. 1 before the learned Single Judge was that the search and seizure of the retail outlet of the respondent No. 1 was conducted by an unauthorised officer.

Learned senior counsel for the appellants, relying on the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), 2005 has submitted that as per Clause 6.1.5 of the MDG, 2005, if any additional mechanism/fittings/gear is found fitted in the dispensing unit with the intention of manipulating the delivery, penal action, which is termination of dealership, will be taken at the first instance. He has submitted that learned Single Judge has not appreciated this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned judgment.

Considering the submissions and the material available on record, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents.

Respondent No. 1 has already put in appearance through his advocate as Caveator. Respondent No. 2 is represented by Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC.

Hence, no need to issue formal notice to the respondents.

Copy of the writ appeal be supplied to the learned counsel representing Page No.# 4/4

the respondents during the course of the day.

List the matter on 30.01.2025.

Till the next date, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4712/2013 shall remain stayed.

                                       JUDGE                    CHIEF JUSTICE


Comparing Assistant