Patna High Court
M/S Ard Associates vs The Union Of India on 13 May, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.273 of 2025
======================================================
M/s ARD Associates, a proprietorship having its registered office at H/o Late
Yamuna Kant Jha, Bageshwari Gumti Near Bam Baba, P.O. R.S. Gaya,
District- Gaya through its Proprietor namely Sri Deepak Kumar (male), aged
about 40 years, Son of Sri Ashok Kumar, resident of H/o Late Yamuna Kant
Jha, Bageshwari Gumti Near Bam Baba, P.O. R.S. Gaya, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Petroleum and Natural
Gas, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi.
3. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., through the Director, Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., Head Office, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
4. The Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Head Office, Mumbai,
Maharashtra.
5. The Chief Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, AOD, State Office,
Guwahati, Assam.
6. The General Manager (Engineering), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AOD,
State Office, Guwahati, Assam.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocate
Mr. Arjun Kumar, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 13-05-2025
Mr. Ankit Katriar, the learned Advocate for the
respondent/Indian Oil Corporation Limited has filed the
counter-affidavit across the board, which is taken on
record. A copy of such affidavit has already been served
on the counsel for the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.273 of 2025 dt.13-05-2025
2/7
2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of
the respondent/ Corporation dated 22.08.2024, putting it
on the holiday list for a period of two years for not having
inspected the canopy at M/s Jai Hanuman Filling Station
in Guwahati, which was damaged resulting in suspension
of sales at the outlet.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the notice issued to the petitioner dated
27.05.2024
wrongly states that the petitioner had been
engaged for inspection of canopy fabrication and for
carrying out QAP at fabrication yard by one AK Interior
and Exterior Associates.
4. The canopy at the concerned outlet was
damaged on 20.04.2024 during a heavy thunderstorm at
that night.
5. The contention of the petitioner is two fold,
viz., that the petitioner was never called upon to inspect
the canopy or its fabrication site and secondly, that the
erection had not been done by the petitioner. The order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.273 of 2025 dt.13-05-2025
blacklisting, it has been submitted, is a result of total non-
application of mind by the respondent/ Corporation,
perhaps for the reason that the petitioner had earlier
worked for the Corporation at Assam where the work was
over.
6. These grounds were not taken into account
while passing the order of putting the petitioner on
holiday list for two years.
7. The initial objection of the Corporation was
with respect to maintainability of this writ petition before
the Patna High Court on the ground that except for the
petitioner having its office at Gaya, which is within the
territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar, no other party
of this case is located in the State of Bihar; rather every
decision in this connection was made at Guwahati in
Assam.
8. This objection is not sustainable for the
reason that admittedly the petitioner is a proprietorship
company, which is located in Bihar and the notice for
Patna High Court CWJC No.273 of 2025 dt.13-05-2025
seeking the reply as to why it should not be blacklisted or
put in holiday list was served in the State of Bihar.
9. The issue with respect to maintainability of
writ petitions has been decided long time back in Kusum
Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr. :
(2004) 6 SCC 254, New India Assurance Company
Ltd. vs. Union of India and others : AIR 2010
Delhi 43 (FB), M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd.
vs. Union of India and others : ILR (2011) VI
Delhi 729 and Vishnu Security Services vs.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner :
2012(129) DRJ 661(DB).
10. In Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of
India & Ors.: (2014) 9 SCC 329, the Supreme Court
after recounting the developments in the constitutional
law with respect to Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and explaining what the term "cause of action" actually
ought to mean and by referring to various other cases on
the issue, held that even if a small part of cause of action
Patna High Court CWJC No.273 of 2025 dt.13-05-2025
arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High court,
that itself may not be considered to be the only
determinative factor compelling that High Court to decide
the matter on merits. In appropriate cases, the Court may
refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking
the doctrine of forum convenience.
11. Testing the facts of the case from the above
perspective, we find that in the event of the petitioner/
proprietorship company being located in the State of
Bihar, which had in the past worked for the Corporation
and in this instance, a show cause notice has been sent to
and received by the petitioner at Gaya as also the order of
blacklisting having been communicated to the petitioner
at Gaya, the petitioner would be entitled to maintain a
writ petition before this Court, not only on the ground of
forum convenience but also on the aspect of
maintainability of a writ petition here where the cause of
action may not stricto sensu would have arisen.
12. Having said that, we find that there has
Patna High Court CWJC No.273 of 2025 dt.13-05-2025
been total non-application of mind on the part of the
Corporation in passing such order of putting the petitioner
on the holiday list.
13. We say so for very many reasons but
especially for the reason that there is no clarity with
respect to the work order. It is not clear whether the
petitioner was called upon for erection of the canopy or
only for inspection of the canopy fabrication site which
had been constructed by another Company. There is no
denial of the fact by the Corporation that the work of
inspection also was not entrusted to the petitioner. There
is no clarity with respect to the mode of communication of
the inspection report of the team of the Corporation, on
which the petitioner had to take the follow up action.
14. Every accusation against the petitioner,
therefore, remains under cloud.
15. The Corporation has not taken into account
the explanation offered by the petitioner.
16. These lapses on the part of the Corporation
Patna High Court CWJC No.273 of 2025 dt.13-05-2025
persuade us to set aside the order impugned in the
present petition.
17. The order dated 22.08.2024 is set aside.
18. The matter is remitted to the General
Manager (Engineering), Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
AOD, State Office, Guwahati, Assam for serving a fresh
notice to the petitioner, in case so required; take the
response of the petitioner pursuant to such notice; and
pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period
of 90 days, to be counted from the date of issuance of
notice to the petitioner.
19. The order so passed shall be communicated
to the petitioner forthwith.
20. The writ petition stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Rajesh/Saurabh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
