Orissa High Court
M/S. Shree Builders vs ) Indian Oil Corporation ..... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7605 of 2025
M/s. Shree Builders,paradeep ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv.
- Prabodha Chandra
Nayak
-versus-
1) Indian Oil Corporation ..... Opposite Parties
Limited.,noida
2) Chief General Manager,indian Oil Represented By Adv. -
Corporation Ltd.,jagatsinghpur
3) The Engineer In Charge,indian Oil
Corporation Ltd.,paradip
4) The Administrator,e-procurement
System,indian Oil Corporation
Ltd.,noida
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
18.03.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the writ
application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2025 and
06.03.2025 under Annexures-1 and 2 respectively, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the writ application.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner, who happens to be a contractor working under the
I.O.C.L., received a show-cause notice dated 03.09.2024 under
Annexure-7 to the writ application. Following which the Petitioner
has written to the authorities on 23.09.2024 under Annexure-8
calling for certain documents. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed his
reply to the show cause notice dated 23.09.2024. However, the
Opposite Parties, without supplying the copies of the relevant
documents which are essential for giving an effective reply to the
show cause notice issued by the Opposite Party-Company, passed
orders under Annexures-1 and 2. In the said context, learned counsel
for the Petitioner further submitted that the orders under Annexures-
1 and 2 have been passed without observing the principles of natural
justice. In the aforesaid context, he also referred to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia &
Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2003) 2
SCC 107, to impress upon this Court that even when an alternative
remedy is available to the Petitioner in the shape of arbitration, there
is no bar for the writ court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Taking into the aforesaid submissions made by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the matter
requires further hearing in presence of the Opposite Parties.
6. Accordingly, issue notice on the question of admission to all
the Opposite Parties through Regd. post with A.D. by fixing a short
returnable date.
7. Requisites for issuance of notice be filed within three working
days.
8. List this matter along with W.P.(C) No.7169 of 2025 in the
week commencing 29.04.2025.
9. Reply affidavit, if any, be filed in the meantime after serving a
copy thereof on learned counsel for the Petitioner.
10. Heard.
11. Notice as above.
12. Accept one set of process fee.
13. As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action
shall be taken pursuant to the Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ
application.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
