^ ^) 6- ?.^^ l" HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SingleBench : Hon'ble ShriS.R. Nayak, CJ. Writ Petltlon No.5769 OF 2005 PETITIONER versys RESPONDENT Shiv Charan, S/o. Late Pachkouri Lal Sunkar (Scheduted Caste) aged about 42 years, R/o Dayalband. Near Sitaram Mandir, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) at present Company Operated Retail Outlet (COCO) Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Acting Through Senior Divisional Manager, "Indian Oil Bhavan" Rajiv Gandhi Marg (VIP Road) P.0. Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Present : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Bhishma Kinger, leamedstanding counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 17th February, 2006) For more than one reason, this writ petition is (iable to be dismissed in limine. On an eariier occasion, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3056 of $003 assailing the validity of the notice dated 25-8- 2003 issued by the management of the Indian Oil Corporation, the respondent therein, informing the petitioner herein that his request for renewal of his job contraot with effect from 24-9-2003 was rejected. That writ pQtition was dismissed by this Court by its order datQd 8-7-2005. As could be'seen from para 8 of that order, the very contention, which is now urged, was also urged before the Court and that contention was negatived ^^ by the Court. Para 8 ofthe order in Writ Petition No.3056 of 2003 reads as follows: • v -i., "It is also admitted position that COCO petrol pump in question at Sarangarh has been decided to be aJlotted to a person namely Dayaram Azad and he has been selected as a regular dealer. Based on the interview,the tndlan 011 Corporation decided to allot the said petrol pump to Dayaram Azad. However, that selection was questioned in W.P.No.181/2004 and that writ petition has been being disposed of by a separate order.. Even otherwise, as per the show cause notice issued by the respondentthe petitioner was not ?bje to achieve the targets. Si'nce appointment ietter dated 23-9-2002 envisages that the petrol pump in question was given to the petjtioner on temporary basis tilj the appointment of regular dealer, and now, the regular dealer has already been selected, therefore, in view of this, the petitioner's petition is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the petrol pump in question was given injtjally for a period of one year and same vras mentioned in clause 5 of the agreement Annexure P-8 with the condition that it can be extended for one year more." (2) In this writ petition also, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the fetter issued by the respondent - Corporation dated 23-9-2002, the petitioner was informed that labour contract granted to him would continue till the appointment of regular dealer. It is true that in the above letter, marked as Annexure P-4, produced at page 25 of the material papers, it is stated that the petitioner woyld be running the COCO as labour contractor on temporary basis till the appointment of regufar dealer by the Corporation. At this stage, it t../ ^.. ^. ^, needs to be noticed that the above letter was followed by ai i agreement betwoen tho parties dated 25-9-2002, a copy of which is producod at pago 32 of the materiai papers; Ciause 5 of the said agreement, in 'inmjstakabje terms, states that the agreement would be for a period of only one year from the date of the agreement, that is to say, for a period of one year with effect from 24-9-2003. The term of that agreement came to an end on 24-9-2004. Thereafterwards, the petitioner has absolutely no lega! right to insist that he should be continued as the COCO labour contractor. Alternatively, it needs to be noticed that the Corporation appointed one Dayaram Azad as a COCO Contractor on regular basis, It appears that the appointment of Dayaram Azad was questioned in Writ Petrtion No.181/2004 and presently that dispute js carried to the Apex Court and the same is pendjng. That circumstance woutd not vest any enforceable rlght in the petitioner to seek mandamus to the Corporation to. permit him to run the COCO as a labour contractor and the Corporation should supply the fuei as demanded by him. Since, 1 do not find any enforceable right in the petitioner as on today, issuance of mandamus to the Corporation would not arise. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingjy dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/-, Chief Justice Gopal