POONAM KUMARI versus JAI PRAKASH PANDEY & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 740 · Decided: 21-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 740 
A 
POONAM KUMARI 
v. 
JAi PRAKASH PANDEY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No: 2871 of 2008) 
B 
APRIL 21, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
• 
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 136 - Dealership in 
respect of retail outlets of petrol pump - Selection of appellant 
c by Dealer Selection Board (DSB) - Challenged in writ petition 
by respondent-Appellant not served with notice- Writ petition 
allowed and selection made by DSB quashed - LPA -
Disposed of, with observation that appellant be granted liberty 
to file application for consideration of her case - Application 
D by appellant - Single Judge of High Court held that though 
she was not afforded opportunity of hearing before allowing 
. 
writ petition, there was no necessity for changing the ultimate 
' 
decision - Division Bench of Hfgh Court held that since matter 
was remitted to DSB for fresh consideration, there was no 
E 
illegality in the order - Challenge to - Held: Matter to be 
considered by high officials of IOC - No interference called 
for-As procedural irregularities were noticed by Single Judge, 
consideration be made by Selection Committee nominated 
by GM, IOC. 
F 
Appellant was selected on the basis of interview for 
appointment of dealer in respect of certain retail outlets 
I 
• 
of petrol pumps and was issued Letter of intent on 
8.11.2001. According to appellant, she had made 
substantial investment in making retail outlet operational. 
G The entire infrastructure was put up by IOC including the 
arrangement of the land, the oil tanks were installed and 
certain persons were employed as members of staff and 
with effect from 12.11.2001, appellant started operating the 
"' 
Retail Outlet. 
H 
740 
POONAM KUMAR! v. JAi PRAKASH PANDEY & ORS. 
741 
.,. 
Respondent no.1, who was also one of the A 
applicants and whose name did not figure in the select 
list, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the 
selection made by the Dealer Selection Board (DSB). The 
main allegation of Respondent no.1was that even though 
his father had made the land available to IOC, he was not B 
given a preference in the matter of allotment and 
appointment as a dealer. In the Writ petition appellant was 
also impleaded as a party. However, no notice was served 
on her. The Writ Petition was allowed on 15.1.2004 and 
J 
the selection made by the DSB was quashed. Since c 
appellant claimed that no notice was served on her and 
she was not in a position to place her case before Sirigle 
Judge who heard and allowed the Writ Petition,"'she ·filed 
LPA. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench 
disposed of the LPA observing that in the interest of D 
justice, the appellant should be granted liberty to file 
. 
'> 
application for consideration of her case so that the Court 
could pass such orders as it may deem fit and just on her 
application and if an application is filed for consideration 
of the writ court within a week, this matter would be placed 
E 
as a fresh case. Pursuant to the said order, an application 
was filed praying that the order dated 15.1.2004 in the Writ 
Petition be recalled. 
Single Judge took up the matter and after noticing 
the grievance of the appellant held that though she was 
F 
" ' 
not afforded the opportunity of hearing before allowing 
the writ petition, there was no necessity for changing the 
ultimate decision. The Appellant filed the LPA questioning 
the said order. By the impugned order the Division Bench 
of the High Court held that since the matter has been 
G 
remitted to the DSB for fresh consideration, there was no 
,. 
illegality in the order. 
~ 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that in 
view of the order passed by this Court in another case 
and on account of the fact that the appellant has made 
H 
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A huge investments and had made the retail outlet 
operational and it was functioning, without any reason 
the facility has been withdrawn and therefore, prayed that 
pending disposal of the matter she should be permitted 
to operate. 
B 
Respondent contended that noticing that there were · 
several irregularities, the DSB was asked to reconsider 
the matter. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: It appears from the order of the Single judge 
that he found that there were certain procedural 
irregularities committed by the DSB and therefore a fresh 
consideration was warranted. The counsel of the IOC 
informed that the DSB i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.