CWP/40581/2018 of M/S PARAMVEER AUTO FUELS Vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

CWP-40581-2018 (O&M)Date of decision: 31.12.2018

M/s Paramveer Auto Fuels

....Petition

3!-'0'

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another

... Responden

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate withMr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocatefor the petitioner.

KOK OK

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN,J.|(Oral)

Prayer in this civil writ petition is for issuance of a writ in thenature of certiorari for setting aside the communication dated 10.12.2018(Annexure P-9), vide which representation filed by the petitioner on07.12.2018 (Annexure P-8) was declined.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that onlyreason given while declining the request of the petitioner is that on anearlier occasion, a show cause notice with regard to excess loading of highspeed diesel was given to the petitioner in the year 2014 and thereafter, thepetitioner had filed CWP-4657-2015, challenging the order dated31.12.2014, vide which technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. It is

further submitted that while passing the earlier order, the respondent-Corporation had taken a decision that one truck of the petitioner bearingregistration No.PB-03W-9954 be blacklisted for a period of two years w.e.f,24.12.2014 and the said period has already lapsed and_ therefore,representation of the petitioner cannot be rejected.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of therespondents and submits that the impugned order has been passedconsidering the fact that on an earlier occasion, one truck of the petitionerwas blacklisted for a period of two years and the writ petition challengingthe said order was dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and consideringthe fact that the order dated 31.12.2014 was passed debarring thepetitioner/blacklisting his one truck for a period of two years, the periodwhich has already lapsed, the respondents are not justified in passing theimpugned order dated 10.12.2018 on the same ground. The CWP-4657-2015, vide which the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order ofblacklisting, was dismissed in view of peculiar facts and circumstances ofthe said case, however, the same will have no bearing on merits of this case,aiter the lapse of period of two years and therefore, the respondents arebound to pass an order afresh, considering the merits of the case.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugnedcommunication dated 10.12.2018 (Annexure P-9) is set aside and therespondents are directed to re-decide the representation of the petitioner alter affording an opportunity of hearing to him, within a period of fourweeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Disposed of, accordingly.

|}ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN |31.12.2018JUDGEvishnuWhether speaking/reasonedYes/NoWhether reportableYes/No