M/S Gauri Shankar Indane Service vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 4766 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CIVIL REVIEW No.79 of 2020
                                              In
                       Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.559 of 2020
     ======================================================

M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Kuchaikote, District - Gopalganj through its Proprietor Ravi Pandey, S/o Late Gauri Shankar Pandey, R/o Flat No. 201, Sindhu Nilay Apartment, Yaduvansh Path, Nageshwar Colony, P.S. - Buddha, Colony, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through the Executive Director (ED), Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Frazer Road, Patna-800001.

2. The General Manager I/c. (LPG), Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Frazer Road, Patna-800001.

3. The Dy. General Manager (LPG), Area Office, Patna under Bihar State Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna.

4. Mr. Udai Kumar, Son of not known, General Manager I/c. (LPG), Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Frazer Road, Patna-800001.

5. Mr. Arun Prasad, Son of Sri R.N. Prasad, the then Chief Area Manager, LPG, Patna Area Office, at present General Manager I/c., LPG, UPSO-1, Lucknow, resident of 402, Maa Sharde Complex, East Boring Canal Road, P.S. - Budha Colony, Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv.

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Adv.

For the Indian Oil Corporation : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Adv.

====================================================== Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-09-2021

Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, who is an erstwhile

Gas Agency, being run under the name and style of

M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Kuchaikote in the

district of Gopalganj, has sought a review of the

judgment and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by

this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 559 of 2020 on the

ground that the complaint made by one Rajesh

Pandey against the petitioner, which was the basis

for terminating the agreement with the petitioner,

was actually verified and was found to be false and

the same was communicated to aforesaid Rajesh

Pandey.

3. Similar complaint was made in the

Prime Minister's Office and a communication had

earlier been made by the respondent/Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation) that the

accusation against the petitioner was incorrect. Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

4. The aforesaid facts and documents

pertaining thereto were not in the possession of the

petitioner and, therefore, those could not be brought

to the notice of this Court when the matter was

heard and finally disposed off on 22.05.2020.

5. To recapitulate the facts, the

petitioner had approached this Court against the

termination letter dated 30.12.2019 issued by the

respondent/Corporation, whereby the distributorship

of the petitioner had been ended with immediate

effect.

6. While challenging the aforesaid

letter/order, it was also prayed by the petitioner that

an inquiry in the matter be directed to be conducted

by a neutral body which would not be associated

either with the respondent/Corporation or the Siwan

Central Co-operative Bank.

7. The aforesaid prayer of the

petitioner was never acceded to.

8. The sole question before the Court Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

was whether the decision of the respondent-

Corporation terminating the agreement with the

petitioner for running the Gas Agency was correct in

view of there being doubt about the correctness of

the allegation that the petitioner did not have

sufficient liquid reserve in his bank account as

mandated under the guidelines in that regard and

that the petitioner did not have the requisite

educational qualifications.

9. This Court had found that the

information provided by the petitioner at the time of

grant of contract regarding the amount of money

parked in his bank account was incorrect. This had

rendered the licence of the petitioner liable to be

cancelled and the contract agreement to be rescinded

as a consequence thereof.

10. What was argued before this Court

was that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the

year 2007, inviting applications for Retail Outlet

Dealers with a premium to freedom fighters, the Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

father of the petitioner, viz., Late Gauri Shankar

Pandey, who had applied for the same, was selected.

But, unfortunately, a day after the Letter of Intent

(L.O.I.) was given to him, he died on 31.10.2008.

The respondent-Corporation, after verifying the

candidature of the petitioner and his being responsive

to all the technical qualifications, had chosen the

petitioner as a concessionaire. The liquid/cash

reserve of the petitioner in the Co-operative Bank

where he maintained an account was Rs.

20,40,000/-, which fact was verified in the "field

investigation".

11. The licence was for a term of five

years, but it was renewed for a further period of five

years.

12. Aforesaid Rajesh Pandey, one of

the employees of the petitioner, was later removed

from service, who, in order to feed-fat his grudge,

lodged a complaint with the I.O.C.L. that the licence

was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud with Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

the Company in projecting and over-exaggerated

financial strength and his educational qualifications.

13. The complaint regarding the

educational qualifications of the petitioner was not

substantiated, but the other allegation was found to

be correct. The petitioner was issued a show-cause

notice and on his explanation not being found to be

acceptable, the agreement with him was terminated.

14. During the course of arguments,

many grounds were urged including that the entire

purpose of asking for the information about the

financial strength of a prospective bidder was only to

ensure that in future, there be no dearth of

infrastructure for the smooth running of the agency,

but such issue did not remain relevant when the

agency had already been run for a period of five

years without any complaint and the contract was

renewed for a further period of five years.

15. The facts which weighed with this

Court regarding incorrect information of the financial Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

strength of the petitioner was that the Co-operative

Bank had issued a certificate that the earlier

certificate confirming the amount of Rs. 20,40,000/-

in the bank account of the petitioner at the time of

grant of first contract, was never issued by the Bank

and that the records indicated that at the time of the

grant of contract, the petitioner had a balance of Rs.

20,400/- only.

16. This Court found that since the

petitioner could not demonstrate that he had Rs.

20,40,000/- in his bank account at the time when

the contract was granted to him, the

respondent/Corporation was perfectly justified in

terminating such contract. However, while

dismissing the writ petition, this Court had observed

that in case no fresh contract for such dealership had

been entered into by the respondent/Corporation

with any third party, it would be open for the

petitioner to approach the concerned authority again

and seek a renewal of the contract on sympathetical Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

considerations, keeping in mind that he had carried

on the obligation of a licensee with due diligence for

about a decade and, therefore, he ought not to be

thrown out of the distributorship lock stock and

barrel.

17. This Court has been informed that

pursuant to the aforesaid concession given by this

Court referred to above, the petitioner made a

representation before the respondent/Corporation but

vide order dated 03.06.2020, passed by the General

Manager I/C (LPG), Bihar State Office, Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., such a request was turned down.

18. Against the aforesaid order passed

by the respondent/Corporation, the petitioner had

preferred a writ vide C.W.J.C. No. 7295 of 2020,

which too was dismissed by order dated 15.01.2021.

19. The reason for preferring the

present review petition is that aforesaid Rajesh

Pandey, on whose complaint the contract of the

petitioner was terminated, had also lodged a Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

complaint before the Prime Minster's Office with

almost same allegation, but the same was not found

to be correct and necessary communication was

made by the respondent/Corporation to the

complainant as also to the Prime Minister's Office.

20. The aforesaid facts and the related

documents were not in the possession of the

petitioner and, therefore, the same could not be

brought to the notice of this Court. Additionally, it

has been argued that the respondent/Corporation

was aware about this development and it was

therefore under an obligation to bring this fact to the

knowledge of the Court when the matter was being

heard. Based on this fact, it has been urged that

holding back such an important communication by

the respondent/Corporation demonstrates that its

action in terminating the contract of the petitioner

was invested with mala fides and that the

respondent/Corporation has not come clean before

this Court. If the aforesaid fact and the related Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

documents would have been placed before this Court,

there could be a possibility of this Court having

decided the matter otherwise.

21. It has also been brought to the

notice of this Court by way of supplementary affidavit

that the petitioner has also made a

complaint/representation through e-mail to the India

Head of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. regarding the

conspiratorial approach of the local

officers/functionaries of the respondent/Corporation

in ousting the petitioner from the business. On such

complaint, an information was sought from Siwan

Central Co-operative Bank on 23.03.2021 regarding

the feasibility of the production of original

ledger/records of the petitioner's saving account,

bearing No.-14111. The Siwan Central Co-operative

Bank is said to have intimated the concerned

authority of the I.O.C.L. that the ledger/records

relating to the savings account of the petitioner is not

available in the Bank records.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

22. In response to the aforesaid

contention by the review-petitioner, the learned

Advocate for the respondent/Corporation has

submitted that no document has been brought on

record by the petitioner, even in this review petition,

to establish that he had Rs. 20,40,000/- in his bank

account with the Siwan Central Co-operative Bank on

the relevant date and, therefore, this review petition

ought not to be entertained.

23. After hearing the learned counsel

for the parties, it appears that the only ground raised

in this review petition is that this Court was not

provided with the information of the

complainant/Rajesh Pandey having made a complaint

in similar terms in the Prime Minister's Office also

and the respondent/Corporation had not found such

complaint to be worthwhile for proceeding against

the petitioner, which fact was communicated to the

Prime Minister's Office as also to the complainant.

24. Annexure-5 to this review petition Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

is a letter addressed to Mr. Rajesh Pandey by the

Deputy General Manager (LPG-S) of Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., dated 09.02.2018, stating that the

complaint/allegations made by him against the

petitioner with respect to his educational

qualifications and bank accounts have not been

substantiated.

25. Assuming for the time being that

this fact, namely, Rajesh Pandey making a similar

complaint before the Prime Minister's Office and the

communication to him by the I.O.C.L, dated

09.02.2018, would have been brought to the notice

of this Court, there would have been no change in

the decision. The reason for saying so is that the

communication does not indicate the process by

which the accusation made by aforesaid Rajesh

Pandey was found to be false and unsubstantiated.

What communication was made from the Office of

the Prime Minister to the respondent/Corporation and

what was the reply of the respondent/Corporation, in Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

case any communication was made in that regard

from the Prime Minister's Office, may not be of

relevance when a complaint against the petitioner

was investigated and was found to be true so far as

the liquid/cash reserve of the petitioner at the time

of grant of contract is concerned.

26. A review of a judgment and order

is permissible but only on a glaring omission or

patent mistake or grave error creeping in such

judgment and order. I am mindful of the basic

principle of review that it is not a matter of re-

hearing on merits and that such power of review is to

be exercised only to prevent miscarriage of justice or

correct the grave and palpable error.

27. Even though the petitioner has

been able to discover a new evidence which was not

available to it despite exercise of due diligence but

that alone would not be sufficient as even if that

document would have been taken into account, the

order would have had the same.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

[Refer to:- (i) Moran Mar Basselios Chatholicos

and another Appellants v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose

Athanasius and others Repondents : AIR 1954 SC 526 ;

(ii) M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Appellant

v. Lt. Governor of Delhi Respondent : AIR 1980 SC 674 ;

(iii) Lily Thomas, etc., Appellants v. Union of India and

others Respondents : 2000 CRI. L.J. 2433; (iv) Board of

Control from Cricket, India and another Appellants v.

Netaji Cricket Club and others Respondents : AIR 2005

SC 592 and (v) The High Court of Judicature at Patna

through the Registrar General Vs. Sri K.K. Chaubey and

other analogous cases : (2015) 4 PLJR 328].

28. Thus, the judgment and order

dated 22.05.2020, which is sought to be reviewed,

does not perpetuate any miscarriage of justice or

abuse of the process of law.

29. A re-hearing and a fresh decision in

a case is not the mandate or scope of the power of

review. The normal and basic principle of rule of law

is that a judgment pronounced by a Court is final and

departure from that principle is justified only when

circumstances of a substantial and compelling Patna High Court C. REV. No.79 of 2020 dt.22-09-2021

character make it necessary to do so. Even at the

risk of reiteration and prolixity, this Court finds that

even in the absence of the new material/evidence

placed before this Court, no error has crept in the

judgment and order requiring its rectification in

review.

30. The review petition is, accordingly,

dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          22/09/2021
Transmission Date       N/A