m\ c' IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 5^^-f OF 2006 PETITIONER Satyanarayan Agarwal, son of Late Radheshyam Agarwal, aged about 52 years, resident of Kharora, Tehsil Tilda, bistrict Raipur (C.6.) Vs ^p- 0°-*-" . l' ^- ^ RESPON&ENTS : , 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a 6overnment of India enterprise having its ^G...-";"^T.(^ registered office at 17, Jamshed Ji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 and a branch office at Madina Manzil, 2nd Floor, Medical College Road, Raipur 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Madina Manzil, 2nd Floor, Medical College Road, Raipur Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTICLES 226 <S^270F THE airruiipN OFlNbiA UIGHC^URTjSFJjlDICATURECHHATTISGARHjBILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETITION N0,3321 OF 2006 PETmONER: Vs. Satyanarayan Agarwal, son of Late Radheshyam Agrawal, aged about 52 yeare, resident of Kharora, Tehsil Tiida, District Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1. Hindusten Petroleum CorporaUon Limited, a Govemment of India enterprise having its registered ofRce at 17, Jamshed Ji Tata Road, Mumbai - 400 020 and a branch office at Madina Manzil, 2nd floor, Medicat College Road, Raipur 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corppration Limited, Madina Manzil, fA floor, Medical College Road, Raipur, Raipur. Present: Mr. B.P Sharma , learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, learned counset for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 17th July, 2006) In this writ petition, a communication of the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Raipur, the second respondent herein, dated 24/5/2006 informing the petitioner that the empanelment of the petitioner for opening a retail outlet at a location in Sandi has been cancelled by the competent authority, is assailed. The impugned order is produced at page 34 of the material papers as Annexure-P/8. 1 have pemsed the same. (2) According to the second respondent/competent authority, the land proposed by the petitioner for establishing a retai! outlet dealership falls outside the advertised location. This assertion made by -a. the second respondent in the impugned communication is seriously contested by the iearned counsel for the petitioner. There is no need for this Court to resolve the above factual controverey, it being a question of fact. The main grievance of the petitioner is that before canceling the empanelment of the petitioner to establish a retail outlet dealership at a location in Sandi by ttie competent authority, he was not served with any notice nor given any opportunity of being heard. 1 am of the considered opinion that before canceling the empanelment of the petitioner on the ground noted above, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard. On that short ground without expressing any opinion on the factual assertion and denial made by the second respondent and the petitioner, 1 atlow the writ pet'rtion, quash the impugned order dated 24/5/2006 and direct the 2" respondent to gh/e notice to the petitioner gh/ing him an opportunity of making representation against the finding of the competent authority that the land proposed by the petitioner for estabtishing a retail outlet deaterehip falls outside the advertised location and then to pass appropriate order. Till then, status quo shall be maintained. No costs. | Sd/- Chief Justice