Gauhati High Court
Sanjay Kumar Jalan vs Harish Gupta on 9 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010087602024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/237/2024
SANJAY KUMAR JALAN
S/O- LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN,
R/O- HIJUGURI, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM
VERSUS
HARISH GUPTA
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL SALES),
TINSUKIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
INDIAN OIL- AOD, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
SRIPURIA ROAD,
PO AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125
For the petitioner : Mr. S. Islam, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. N. Baruah, Advocate
Page No.# 2/4
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
09-05-2025
(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)
This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that the alleged
contemnor has not complied with the direction given by the Division Bench of
this Court vide order dated 17.10.2023 in WA 85/2022.
2. The appellants have filed the above-referred writ appeal being aggrieved
with the judgment and final order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) 3549/2020, whereby the decision of the respondent
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") in
stopping the supply of fuel to the Retail Outlet in question was reversed and the
Corporation was directed to take on record the proposal submitted by the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the writ appeal for reconstitution of the dealership
strictly in accordance with the Rules by giving opportunity of hearing to the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and other stakeholders with the rider that the
consideration would have to be limited only towards the requirements raised in
the letter dated 10.07.2020 and the Corporation would not be at liberty to
embark upon deciding the legality of the partnership which could only be
decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this
Court reversed the said judgment and final order passed by the learned Single
Judge while granting liberty to the appellants as well as the respondents in WA
85/2022 to sort out their differences and to revert to the respondent
Corporation for reconstitution of the firm. The Division Bench of this Court
Page No.# 3/4
granted six months' time for the said exercise while granting liberty to the
respondent Corporation to take appropriate steps as per the applicable
guidelines. The operative portion of the judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in WA 85/2022 is reproduced hereunder:
"13. In the peculiar facts of the case, we hereby give liberty to all legal heirs of
Late M.P. Jalan to sort out their differences and to revert to the respondent
Corporation for reconstitution of the firm. If the above process is not completed
within a period of 6 (six) months, the respondent Corporation shall be at liberty
to take appropriate steps as per the applicable Guidelines. Till then, the
respondent No.2, namely, Shri Rajesh Jalan, shall be allowed to operate the
fuel pump in question under the "Holiday Scheme". The impugned judgment &
order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.3549/2020 is reversed."
3. The petitioner is alleging that though no amicable settlement is arrived at
between the parties within the period of six months as granted by the Division
Bench of this Court, the Indian Oil Corporation has not taken any steps as per
the guidelines pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court.
4. Affidavit-in-opposition is filed on behalf of the contemnor. In the affidavit-
in-opposition, the respondent has contended that when the parties failed to
arrive at any settlement within the time fixed by this Court, the IOCL authorities
wrote letters to the parties to come for reconstitution of the partnership firm.
However, in the meantime, one party, who was respondent No.2 in the writ
appeal, approached the Civil Court and obtained injunction order. Though the
injunction order was later on vacated by this Court in a separate proceeding and
the matter was remanded to the trial Court for deciding afresh the injunction
application, the said injunction application has not been decided till date.
Page No.# 4/4
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through
the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent, we are of the view
that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of wilful disobedience of the
order passed by this Court by the sole respondent. This Court simply granted
liberty to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to take appropriate steps as per the
applicable guidelines if the parties fail to arrive at an amicable settlement and
the said liberty cannot be termed as any direction from this Court. Hence, we do
not find any merit in this contempt petition and the same is, therefore,
dismissed.
Notice discharged.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
