LPA No. 1008 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1008 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision 03.06.2011 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited -----Appellant Versus Harbans Kaur ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the Indian Oil Corporation is directed against the judgment dated 27.04.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge whereby the show cause notice dated 04.05.2009 (P-5) issued to the writ petitioner- respondent has been quashed. The appellants have been directed to reconsider the entire issue on the application to be made either to run the kerosene dealership alone or in partnership with her one or both the daughters. The writ petitioner-respondent has given an undertaking before the learned Single Judge that she would ensure that the distributorship would not be misused in any manner and it is LPA No. 1008 of 2011 (O&M) -2- run efficiently. The application was to be submitted within one week and the action on the aforesaid application was to be taken within a month thereafter. 2. Facts in detail have been noticed by the learned Single Judge. It is suffice to mention that the writ petitioner-respondent is a widow of an ex-serviceman who was allotted the kerosene dealership by the appellant-Corporation on 18.11.1973 on account of his participation in two wars fought by the Country. Shri Gurdev Singh Grewal suffered injuries during war. With the consent of the appellant-Corporation, the ex-serviceman joined his two daughters namely, Tejpal Kaur and Jagdish Kaur as partners on 5.11.1986. He died on 08.08.1993. As a result, the widow entered into partnership firm along with two daughters. One of the daughters made a complaint which led to the suspension of supplies and issuance of a show cause notice (P-5), which has now been quashed. The learned Single Judge after noticing the ugly attitude of one of the daughters in making unsubstantiated complaint to the appellant- Corporation, has concluded that the appellant-Corporation without any verification of the allegations made in the complaint hurriedly proceeded to suspend the supply of kerosene oil resulting into snapping the source of livelihood given this widow. It has been found that other two daughters have been married and are employed. In fact they did not need any other financial help. The writ petitioner-respondent being widow has only this source of LPA No. 1008 of 2011 (O&M) -3- income to survive. The learned Single Judge also refused to refer the matter to the Arbitrator and adopted a sympathetic approach as against strict legal approach tilted towards the widow on account of the fact that her husband had suffered war injuries in two wars and was allotted this kerosene depot as a reward. The learned Single Judge also preferred to ignore all the irregularities or small illegalities which ordinarily in respect of other allottee as against ex-serviceman might have resulted into serious consequences and has proceeded to quash the show cause notice. The learned Single Judge has further issued direction as noticed above. 3. We have heard Mr. Ashish Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and minutely perused the view rendered by the learned Single Judge. It may be true that few abrasion have been committed by the writ petitioner-respondent but keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has used the discretion by quashing the show cause notice. It has further been directed that the writ petitioner-respondent would file a detail application after deciding whether she would like to join any of her daughter or both the daughters as the partners. The application is required to be considered by the appellant-Corporation within a period specified in the order. Therefore, it has still been left in the hands of the appellant-Corporation. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with the directions issued by the learned LPA No. 1008 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Single Judge. However, we make it clear that this case may not be considered as precedent and laying down any general principle of law applicable to the category of ex-serviceman or the widow/sons/ daughters of the ex-serviceman. 5. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE June 03, 2011 Atul