Orissa High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Ramachandra Nayak on 29 July, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.811 of 2025
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, .... Appellant
Bhubaneswar
Mr.Sreejit Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Ramachandra Nayak .... Respondent
Mr.Kishore Kumar Mishra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
29.07.2025
Order No.
03. I.A.No.2130 of 2025 (Arising out of W.A.No.811 of 2025)
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This interlocutory application is filed seeking
condonation of delay in filing the Writ Appeal against an order
dated 28.10.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No.15497 of 2024.
3. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the rejection of
the candidature of the respondent for appointment as a dealer for
proposed Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) at the location "From
Brundabanpur to Chillataila towards Angul on either side on NH-
655 in the district of Dhenkanal under open category", pursuant
to notice dated 28.06.2023.
4. It is revealed from the impugned order passed in the Writ
Petition that the document in respect of "Khata No.93/98" though
was submitted by the respondent along with application form, due
to inadvertence the same was typed out in the application form
submitted online as "Khata No.99/98".
5. The learned Single Judge having considered the merit of
the matter held that "Although the Brochure does not permit to
correct the error, i.e. Khata Number in the application form, but,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that
Khata No.99/98 mentioned in the Table-13 of the application
form should be read as Khata No.93/98.".
6. Challenging the aforesaid observation by the learned
Single Judge, the Writ Appeal has been filed with inordinate
delay of around 145 days. The appellant filed interlocutory
application by stating the following facts to show sufficient cause
which prevented it from filing appeal within the period stipulated
under the Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read
with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent Statute, High Court of
Judicature, Patna:
"6. That the deliberations regarding the
implementation of the directions contained in the
impugned order dated 28.10.2024 took considerable
time since the same is contrary to the provisions of
clause 23(P) of the dealer selection guidelines of the
Petitioner-Corporation, which is applicable across
India. It was felt that implementation of the
directions contained in the impugned order dated
28.10.2024 could have an impact on the policy of the
Corporation at a national level as well as an adverse
effect on the stand of the Petitioner Corporation in
litigations pending before different Courts on similar
grounds. After prolonged deliberations, it was finally
concluded that since the directions in the impugned
order dated 28.10.2024 are contrary to the policy of
the Corporation embodied in Clause 23 (P) of the
dealer selection guidelines, the said order requires to
be assailed in an appeal before the Hon'ble Division
Bench.
7) That, the processing of the proposal for filing the
accompanying writ appeal at different levels in the
hierarchy of the decision making process and
transfer of officers dealing with proposal has
resulted in a delay of 114 days in preferring the
accompanying writ appeal.
8) That the aforesaid delay is neither deliberate nor
intentional but due to the reasons stated above."
7. Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate for the
respondent having raised objection on 15.07.2025 when this
Court proceeded to hear on the petition for condonation of delay.
He submitted that no sufficient or reasonable cause has been
shown in the petition warranting consideration of condonation of
delay; rather the petition read as a whole would indicate excuse,
but not explanation. It is for the appellant to show reasonable
cause for the delay in approaching the Court not only during the
prescribed period, but also for the period of delay that has
occurred till filing of appeal.
8. At that juncture, Mr. Sreejit Mohanty, learned Advocate
for the appellant sought for accommodation to file additional
affidavit to support application for condonation of delay.
Accordingly, an additional affidavit dated 22.07.2025 has come
to be filed. In the additional affidavit so filed except for
movement for file between officials, no plausible explanation for
the delay has been demonstrated. This Court was taken to the
internal communication made by the Senior Law Manager. A
communication by the Senior Law Officer on 3rd January, 2025
reads thus:
"As per the petitioner, he had submitted ROR and
ancillary documents with respect to Khata No-93/98
along with the application. But he inadvertently
typed Khata No-99/98 instead of Khata No-93/98 at
table No-13 in the application form. Vide order dated
28.10.2024 in WP (C) No-15497/2024
(Ramachandra Nayak-vs-IOCL & Ors) Hon'ble
Court had observed that
"True it is that Clause -23 (p) does not permit any
rectification/correction in Khata Number mentioned
in the application form as per Clause-23 of the
Brochure. But an inadvertent error in the application
form should not be a ground to reject the
candidature of the Petitioner, if he is otherwise
eligible and documents filed in respect of the land
offered make him eligible for award of RO
dealership. Although the Brochure does not permit to
correct the error, i.e., Khata Number in the
application form, but, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court feels that Khata No.99/98
mentioned in the Table-13 of the application form
should be read as Khata No.98/98." Accordingly,
Hon'ble court has directed IOCL to scrutinize the
application of the petitioner treating the land offered
by the petitioner as Khata No.98/98.
View above, though possibility of winning in appeal
is bleak, we can take a chance by thing an appeal
against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2024,
since here is an interference in the policy of the
Corporation. Recommended for approval.
9. As it seems from the aforesaid communication that the
Law Officer was sure about the result of the appeal. It appears
from the aforesaid opinion that the appellant perceived there is
feeble chance of success in the appeal. It should not have
preferred appeal by approaching the Division Bench challenging
the finding of fact by the learned Single Judge. Notwithstanding
such opinion of the Senior Law Manager in January, 2025, the
Writ Appeal was filed on 22.04.2025. The averments of the
interlocutory application as well as the affidavit do not reveal the
cause of delay during January, 2025 till its filing in the month of
April, 2025. Perusal of the record transpires that the appellant
was not diligently pursuing the matter. Therefore, this Court does
not find any substantial injustice meted out to the appellant.
10. Since no plausible explanation is put-forth by the
appellant, the Interlocutory Application is dismissed being sans
explanation.
11. Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. All
Interlocutory Application (s), pending if any, stand dismissed.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Bichi
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
