Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Deputy General Manager vs Rajasthan Petroleum Dealers ... on 23 January, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:4846]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 318/2024

1. Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian
Oil Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Belard Estate,
Mumbai, Maharashtra.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Petroleum Dealers Association, Jaipur Through
Its State President Dr. Rajendra Singh Bhati S/o Fateh
Singh Bhati Aged About 49 Years, R/o Bhawani Niketan,
Near Pura Guest House, Sardarshahar, Churu, Rajasthan,
331403
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Petroleum, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Chief Secretary, Petroleum And Natural Gas
Regulatory Board, New Delhi.
4. Additional Secretary, Department Of Promotion Of
Industry And Internal Trade, Central Secretariat, New
Delhi.
5. Chairman, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Jamshed Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
6. Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Model Town, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.
7. Deputy General Manager, State Head, Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur.
8. Joint Controller Of Explosives, Faridabad, Haryana.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 411/2024
Deputy General Manager, State Head, Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Petroleum Dealers Association, Jaipur Through
Its State President Dr. Rajendra Singh Bhati S/o Fateh
Singh Bhati Aged About 49 Years, R/o Bhawani Niketan,

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (2 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

Near Pura Guest House, Sardarshahar, Churu, Rajasthan,
331403
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Petroleum, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Chief Secretary, Petroleum And Natural Gas
Regulatory Board, New Delhi.
4. Additional Secretary, Department Of Promotion Of
Industry And Internal Trade, Central Secretariat, New
Delhi.
5. Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil
Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai, 400 051. (Address Wrongly Mentioned In Writ
Petition As Belard Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
6. Chairman, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Jamshed Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
7. Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian
Oil Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
8. Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Model Town, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
9. Joint Controller Of Explosives, Faridabad, Haryana
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Piyush Sharma.
Ms. Akshiti Singhvi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Ranjan Singh for
Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat.

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

23/01/2025

1. The present misc. applications have been filed with a prayer

for recalling of the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by this Court in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9191/2024 (Rajasthan

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (3 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

Petroleum Dealers Association, Jaipur vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.).

2. Vide order dated 25.07.2024 while disposing of the

aforementioned writ petition, non-applicant No.1 (petitioner in the

writ petition) was directed to move a fresh representation and

respondent No.3, Additional Chief Secretary, Petroleum and

Natural Gas Regulatory Board, New Delhi (respondent No.2 in the

aforementioned writ petition) and Chairman, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, Belard Estate, Mumbai Maharashtra

(respondent No.4 in the aforementioned writ petition and

hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.4'), were directed to

decide the said representation within a period of three weeks from

the date of the receipt of the same.

3. It has been submitted in the application on behalf of the

applicants that the order dated 25.07.2024 had been procured by

the petitioner-Association while concealing several facts which

amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out to the following events

to bring to light the alleged concealment of facts:

(i) A writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation

(PIL) was filed by Rajendra Singh Bhati, the President of the

petitioner-Association being D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.18464/2019 for the same reliefs as prayed for in the present

writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9191/2024 and

as raised in the representation dated 03.08.2024.

(ii) The above PIL petition came to be disposed of on

07.03.2022 whereby the Court declined to examine the

correctness and legality of the NOCs for the reason that the

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (4 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

parties in whose favour the said NOCs had been issued, were not

impleaded in the said petition. However, the petitioner was given a

liberty to file separate petition in respect of any particular case

where according to the petitioner, NOC had been issued in

violation of any applicable law, rule or guideline.

So far as the guidelines qua the issuance of the NOCs is

concerned, it was observed that it would be open to the

respondent authorities to issue comprehensive guidelines, if it

thought necessary to do so.

(iii) Subsequent to the said PIL petition being disposed of

on 07.03.2022, second PIL Petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.4804/2024 was filed on behalf of the petitioner-Association

at Jaipur Bench of this Court for the same reliefs.

On 11.07.2024, notices to the respondents were issued in

the said PIL petition and the matter is subjudice before the

Division Bench of this Court.

(iv) However, three more writ petitions being S.B. Civil

Writ Petition Nos.12757/2024, 12763/2024 & 12785/2024

were filed by the petitioner-Association for the same reliefs. All the

three writ petitions were decided in limine on a submission made

by learned counsel for the petitioner-Association that the

respondent authorities be directed to decide the representation as

preferred by the petitioner-Association.

(v) Despite having obtained three orders for decision of its

representation, the petitioner-Association again filed the present

writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9191/2024 for

the same reliefs and herein too, obtained the same order on

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (5 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

25.07.2024 which it had obtained in the aforementioned earlier

three writ petitions.

(vi) Now, in pursuance to the order dated 25.07.2024, the

petitioner-Association has moved a representation before the

applicant authorities and has prayed for decision of the same.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the above facts clearly

reveal that the petitioner-Association is habitual of filing multiple

petitions and procuring orders in limine concealing the facts of the

earlier petitions/litigation already filed/undertaken by it. The same

clearly amounts to misuse of the process of law.

6. He further submits that the present petition is also in

defiance of the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Hon'ble

Division Bench in PIL petition (D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.18464/2019) whereby the Court made it clear that the

petitioner ought to file separate writ petition qua each NOC

granted to any individual based on its own particular facts.

However, the present writ petition had again been filed for the

same reliefs while concealing the order dated 07.03.2022 which is

clearly a defiance of the orders of the Court.

7. Furthermore, the second PIL Petition preferred by the

petitioner-Association being already pending adjudication, the

filing of three writ petitions again and obtaining orders for deciding

the representations of the petitioner-Association is also the gross

abuse of the process of law.

8. So far as the direction to decide the representation of the

petitioner-Association is concerned, learned Senior Counsel

submits that the applicant authorities are not in a position to

decide the representation as filed by the petitioner-Association

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (6 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

firstly for the reason that the order was passed in limine and the

said respondents were not aware of the facts of the writ petition.

Secondly, the applicant, i.e. the Chairman of the Indian Oil

Corporation Limited is not the authority to decide any issue as

raised in the representation for the complete State of Rajasthan.

It is submitted that the issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' is

entirely within the domain of the State authorities as it is the

Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) which

grants the license for running of retail outlets under the Petroleum

Rules, 2002. Therefore, issues pertaining to grant of NOC for

PESO license are not within the domain of the applicant-IOCL and

hence, it is not the competent authority to decide the said issues.

Thirdly, the representation of the petitioner-Association

raises the issues regarding grant of NOC for retail outlets in the

complete State of Rajasthan pertaining to the other oil companies

too. The Chairman of the applicant-Company therefore, cannot be

the authority to decide the issues pertaining to the other oil

companies.

9. So far as respondent No.3 is concerned, counsel submits that

the issues raised in the representation pertain to the grant of NOC

in the State of Rajasthan and therefore, respondent No.3 i.e. the

authority of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board at

New Delhi cannot also be the competent authority to take any

decision qua retail outlets within the State of Rajasthan.

10. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submits that a contempt

petition has now been preferred by the petitioner-Association for

non-compliance of the order dated 25.07.2024, which for the

aforesaid reasons, the applicants are not in a position to comply

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (7 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

with and hence, the order dated 25.07.2024 deserves to be

recalled.

11. A reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the

petitioner-Association.

12. So far as the order dated 07.03.2022 in PIL petition (D.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.18464/2019) is concerned, learned Counsel

for the petitioner-Association submits that vide order dated

07.03.2022, the petitioner-Association was granted a liberty to

challenge the NOCs issued by the State authorities while

impleading the NOC holders as party respondents and hence, in

terms of the liberty granted, the petitioner-Association filed a

fresh PIL petition before the Jaipur Bench of this Court challenging

the NOCs while impleading all the NOC holders.

13. So far as the present writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.9191/2024 is concerned, an entirely distinct issue

concerning the implementation of de-duplication policy has been

raised.

14. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12757/2024, specific challenge

to the issuance of NOC to a specific retail outlet at Bidasar, District

Churu was laid in which liberty was granted to the petitioner-

Association vide order dated 06.08.2024.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the various writ

petitions as filed by the petitioner-Association were on identical

issues.

15. Counsel submits that the petitioner-Association has in no

manner abused the process of law.

16. So far as the order dated 25.07.2024 is concerned, counsel

submits that respondent No.2-Board has even decided the

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (8 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

representation as filed by the petitioner-Association vide order

dated 10.10.2024 and while deciding the same, has directed

respondent No.4 too to decide the same. Respondent No.4, just in

order to evade the contempt proceedings, has preferred the

present application before this Court which deserves to be

dismissed and respondent No.4 deserves to be directed to comply

with the order dated 25.07.2024.

17. Heard the counsels. Perused the material available on

record.

18. So far as the order dated 07.03.2022 passed in PIL Petition

being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18464/2019 is concerned,

this Court is of the clear opinion that vide the said order, the

petitioner-Association was granted a liberty to file an individual

petition challenging the grant of NOC to any particular

dealer/retail outlet. Vide the said order, a liberty to the

respondents was also given to issue comprehensive guidelines if it

thought necessary to do so. The said liberty was granted keeping

into view the two circulars dated 11.02.2021 and 21.09.2021

issued by the State revising its earlier guidelines.

19. Further, the petitioner-Association was also granted the

liberty to represent to the State but then no liberty to file a fresh

petition for the same reliefs can be read out from the order dated

07.03.2022.

20. So far as the other three writ petitions are concerned, even if

the averment of the petitioner-Association pertaining to S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.12757/2024 being related to a specific retail

outlet at Bidasar, District Churu is admitted, there is no

explanation regarding the other two writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (9 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

Petition Nos.12763/2024 & 12785/2024) and the present writ

petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9191/2024).

21. From the above facts, it is evident on record that despite the

PIL Petition No.18464/2019 having been disposed of on

07.03.2022, the petitioner-Association kept on filing various

petitions for the same reliefs which have already been taken care

of in the first PIL Petition No.18464/2019.

22. What is glaring is that a second PIL Petition for the same

reliefs was filed before the Jaipur Bench and despite the same

being pending adjudication, four writ petitions were again filed

before this Court for the same reliefs. Interestingly, all the four

writ petitions were got disposed of in limine on a submission made

by counsel for the petitioner-Association to the effect that the

respondents be directed to decide the representation of the

petitioner-Association.

23. Despite the order of getting its representation decided been

procured in two writ petitions on 06.08.2024, the present writ

petition was filed for the same reliefs and again, an identical order

was obtained by the petitioner-Association.

24. This Court is of the clear opinion that the same is a clear

abuse and misuse of the process of the Court, moresoever, when a

PIL Petition preferred by the petitioner-Association is already

pending adjudication before the Division Bench of this Court at

Jaipur Bench for the same reliefs.

25. This Court cannot further be oblivious of the fact that all the

above facts of the petitioner-Association having preferred the

earlier petitions and having obtained orders in the same were

concealed in the present petition. Not a whisper about any of the

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (10 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

earlier petitions and the orders passed thereupon has been made

in the present petition. The said non-disclosure of previous orders/

decisions, in the opinion of this Court, is in clear terms a gross

abuse of process of Court.

26. A litigant cannot be permitted to raise continuous frivolous

litigations and that too while concealing the facts of the earlier

proceedings already undertaken by it.

27. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again observed that it

is the duty of litigants to approach the Courts with clean hands

and disclose all relevant material facts before the Court. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. &

Ors.; (2013) 2 SCC 398 while discussing various judgments on

abuse of process of Court and increasing frivolous litigations

observed as under:

"29..... The cases of abuse of the process of court and
such allied matters have been arising before the Courts
consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it
dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated
the principles that would govern the obligations of a
litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any
grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process
of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the
principles. It is difficult to state such principles
exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly
apply to a variety of cases. These are:

(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon
litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the
Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of
facts and came to the courts with 'unclean hands'. Courts
have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be
heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief.
(ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an
ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court
that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the
court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the

(Downloaded on 14/02/2025 at 11:53:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (11 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of
such a litigant.
(iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean
hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly
been reiterated by this Court.
(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense
that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take
shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts
in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and
malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of
litigative values for small gains.
(v) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of
justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with
tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
(vi) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused
and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it
would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of
security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court
would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.
(vii) Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must
examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is
genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice
should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous
litigants.
(viii) The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to
maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process
of court and ordinarily meddle some bystanders should
not be granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new
problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should
endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well-
justifies it.
[Refer: Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.: (2010) 2SCC
114; Amar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:(2011) 7 SCC
69 and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and
Ors.: (2010) 3 SCC 402].
................

32.....To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed

[2025:RJ-JD:4846] (12 of 13) [WMAP-318/2024]

and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs. ................

34. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, which means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another, is the percept for Courts. Wide jurisdiction of the court should not become a source of abuse of the process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the court with clean hands.

35. No litigant can play 'hide and seek' with the courts or adopt 'pick and choose'. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court. K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.: (2008) 12 SCC 481.

36. Another settled canon of administration of justice is that no litigant should be permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions. No litigant has aright to unlimited drought upon the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be used as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K.Parasaran :