^^r.^t?-^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. ^-^l 2002 PETITIONER f^ Abdul Rashid, S/o Abdul Hafiz, R/o Surajpur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ^-^ ,.^"" ^ ^ ^ ^"y^ Union of Ipdia Through - Secretary Petroleum & Natural Gas., Shastry Bhawan, New Delhi. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.^ Through: Managing Director, Having its Regd. Office at Aliyavar Jung Marg, Bandra East Mumbai (M.S.) Zonal Manager, Indian 011 Corporation Ltd., Near Jail Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 ^ ^n^n^T, '@^FTS, f^TRry ^lg^i^l" "^Hi^ 3TliW 1[T51^ .W.tP..»..10..1..9 of 2002 •^ 200 '^re^s?" ^n^T^T ^ri^^i^Y '^RfNT^I^ ^?T ^cFf^: ^[fi?[ 23-1-2004 On roeation being made b^ eounsel Sor respoQdents No«2 & 3 the matter is takeia up» Shri Prasho^t Mishra Co^nsel for the petitioner, Shri Vinay Harit, Seniojj- Ceotral GovernmeBt staading Counsel for respondeat i»o»l Shri Bhiriam Kiager, coyi^ael ios respondenf no»2 & 3. Heard* Retura ha©been fiXed b it has been stated that tehe at Raipus- on 24/25-5-1990 -2* Tfa® location waej on 24/25-5-1990 •J letteir dated 25-| panel compriai&gj ^r^iferih" °W:FJT^^s <r^^i< ^r^rf^w^n^T EespondeRts no«2 & 3 i& ftoicki locafeioB waa advertised on ll<10»l985 and interviews w^re held by the Selection Board It i»also stated that o& th® basia of the fietd lavectiglatioa, tfae SeleGtlon Board reeomaiended to issue the I*e|bter of Intent <LoI) in favour of the petitioner* paragrajpba 2 to 6 of the retuna ar« relevant, here and quoted bepiowt advectised on XI<10.1985 aad interview lajeld by tbe tfaen Oil Selection Board (West.-!) (|for short •O.S.B. at RaipuiE- Tbe O.S.B. vide ttoel^ l5-nl990 reGOiaBaenaed the xaertt three candidatea aad advised the answei-iag r«|spoadents to return the Field Investigation Rejport on the eapanelled eandidatea^ That based on t^e Pteld Investigatlo^. the 0»S,B.vi^ ttieijr aetteir da ©^•i7m '^99©.. |@^nanin^^^a^a%8<a,.@$-=^fe^s''oi;lateat C2*e^^'la--faiv<3^''p;f-;tilae:l;^UtioaeE»' r [Tft^'^fe4 XI-HC-22 ^H^r^T f^iW ^Tii^T ^HNT^f^ <® ^^ ^TRTRPT, 's^ftwr?, t^TRTy; 3TI^T T?^^ iTra^'^w^*'^'**'*^*a '^^^ ^ '^^T' 200 ^T^T^CT^^t^ -2- 4» That^ meanwhile respondeat no^l ^< dated 14-9-1990 representatioa d« of Parliaroenfe an^ respoadents aot but instead submt matte2?<» In faeti againsfe the of parliaisent bx3ii against the of M/s<.Janta peti^ioaer termJlnatioa Traj^sport &• Thafe subsequentl^ vide lettexr date4 10-8-1994 inforaiejd detailed backgro^' eystwhile retail subject locatio^ Plaa aought an e< of the &OI in fa'Moxw 6. That, the releas^ kept in abeyance date<? 14-9-1990 reference to a V3 Copies have been suppl. of India/respondent noel^ respondeat no<,l has not fili Counsel for the petiti| aay rhyme and reasoa^ tbe witteheld. 21 is poiated respondenfeft ao^2 & 3 does factually or legally In Shri Vinay Harit, standing ^ShrlBhiahra Kinger, counsei 'SFTqfef^ ^RT^ff "^ 'fe^st <^^R ^3R^<R3TI^T here was a lette^ from earing P-19012/297/90-IOC oiwarding the copy of ted 30-7-1990 frora Member aQvising the answeriBg o i»su.e LOI to tfae petitioner t a report OB the subject there was no complaint frora the HoKi'ble Member a lcind of irepreseatatioa of the dealership Co-operative Society^ the answerJLag respondents 26-10-1990. 30-7-1994 and tbe respondent no<»l of the nd of decoRimissioaiBg of ffoe ©^tlefeaad iaclusion o£ in the year 1984-85 Marketing rly permtssioa for release of the petitioner^ of tiie subject LOI haa been |in compliance witte the lette^ isupra) of respondent no<»l with qiwry.** ^d to counsel for the Unioi^ pEnspite of the opportunity^ Ljed any retura^ L^ner contended that without Ljetter of Intenfe (LOI) has been oujfe that the return filed by lajst show^aay iropedimeRt either iaslaiag the Letter of lateBt. |3oimsel for respondent No^l and for resoondents No.2_^_A—are ^ [^ft^^f^^ ^ XI-H022 7^ ^PTRi^, •StN^, ^TRTy 3TT^T X|^^ M6N^lT^b^8^ •M 200 ^TI^T^T f^JW^l^T •^TteT^fi^ /Rao/ %. ^' subialits not in a position to disputej Shri Mishra further since 1990 and it should be witfoout further delay^ HavJLng considered the f| on record aad th&te the mattel cont^ary meBtioned in the ce| in the opinioa of fhis Court| JLf a direction is given to tf &® early a'a posaible done ^ This petitxon is allowe^ No costa^ Conseqyently, M ^W »p »No <» |I .A» 2409/2003, I.A.11089/200; C.c* as per rules. prefera^ly cbl^Id4t^ ^Rwrif'? ^St <[^^1< ^'^rf^R3?T^T thia contentioB<» that th®raatter is pending lecided a» early as possible icts and ci^cuastaiices^ mate^ial is peading slnce 1990 and nothiag .urn fiXed by respondents no«2 & 3 en^a of juatice will be cerved ie E-espondents to do the needful within 3 raoBthB. Let it b® subject to tiie above fi.irection, 80/2003, I «A,NOB»219/2003 . & I,A»l05/2004 stand dlsposed of» Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge [^i^^