Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16653 (GAU)

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD v. MR KYNREMRI LYNGDOH

I.A.(Civil)/2435/2025 · 2025-08-10

Arun Dev Choudhury

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010165962025 2025:GAU-AS:10554 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2435/2025 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD SCOPE COMPLEX, CORE-27, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110003. 2: DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RS) INDIAN OIL ASSAM OIL DIVISION (IOAOD) GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI- 781021 3: DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TERMINAL) INDIAN OIL ASSAM OIL DIVISION (IOAOD) BETKUCHI TERMINAL GUWAHATI- 781018. 4: SALES OFFICER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. ASSAM AUTO AGENCY JOWAI ROAD SHILLONG-793003 RETAIL SALES ARE VERSUS MR KYNREMRI LYNGDOH S/O- LATE B. KHARLYNGDOH P.O- NONGLYER, EAST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT MEGHALAYA, A DEALER OF HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (HPCL) AND THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S MYLLIEM SERVICE STATION 2:MR BATKUPAR LYNGDOH S/O- LATE B. KHARLYNGDOH A DEALER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (IOCL) AND THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S NONGSTOIN HIGHWAY SERVICE STATION VILLAGE- NONGSPUNG HIMA MYRIAW Page No.# 2/5 WEST KHASI HILLS MEGHALAYA 3:MS BANRILIN LYNGDOH W/O- MR. PYNHUNLANG WANSWETT A DEALER OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (IOCL) AND THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S RILYNGNGAM SERVICE STATION ZERO POINT RIANGDO WEST KHASI HILLS MEGHALAYA 4:MRS ANGEL PALA W/O- MR. ANVIL LYNGDOH A DEALER OF HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (HPCL) AND THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S POWE POINT SERVICE STATION VILLAGE- DIENCHYNRUM P.S- KHLIEHRIAT NH 44 EAST JAINTIA HILLS MEGHALAYA 5:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS A-WING 2ND FLOOR SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001 6:THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD HPCL) A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD MUMBAI- 400020. 7:THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (HPCL) 2ND FLOOR HD COMPLEX JANA PATH BORA SERVICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M). Page No.# 3/5 8:DEPOT MANAGER THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (HPCL) BETKUCHI GUWAHATI- 781018. 9:THE SALES OFFICER THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (HPCL) SHILLONG SALES AREA SHILLONG EAST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT MEGHALAYA. 10:ASSAM PETROLEUM MAZDOOR UNION G.N.B. ROAD ABHIRAM HOUSE GUWAHATI- 781003 REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT ASSAM PETROLEUM MAZDOOR UNION GUWAHATI- 781003 11:ASSISTANT SECRETARY ASSAM PETROLEUM MAZDOOR UNION G.N.B. ROAD ABHIRAM HOUSE GUWAHATI- 781003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARMA, MR. M K CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MS S CHAKRABORTY, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. M Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 in WP(C) No.7156/2019. 2. The present application is filed seeking deletion/striking out the name of the respondent No.1 i.e., the Union of India from the array of respondents in the connected writ petition. Page No.# 4/5 3. Mr. Sarma, submits that in view of a circular dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure-A) issued by the Executive Director (Coordination, Planning & QC0, HO), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, present application is filed, more particularly in view of mandate of paragraph 2 of the Circular dated 16.12.2013. 4. Ms. T Ramchiary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. S Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that such an application is not maintainable at the hands of the respondent authorities, inasmuch as the Union of India is a necessary party. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The pleadings made in this application clearly reveal that present application is filed by the respondents seeking deletion of the names of another respondents based on a circular dated 16.12.2013 (supra). 7. Paragraph 2 of the Circular dated 16.12.2013 is quoted herein below: “Even though where the Ministry may not be a necessary party and is impleaded as a proforma party, pursuant to the Ministry’s instruction to get them deleted from the array of Respondents, instructions should be issued by concerned Law Department to IOC’s counsel for taking action to delete the Ministry’s name. needless to mention that in all such cases, MOP&NG should be kept apprised through the concerned Functional Head with all developments from time to time under intimation to Head of Region/State Office, so as to enable them to brief the Management at appropriate level with the progress of the matters from time to time.” Page No.# 5/5 8. Paragraph 2 of the circular prescribes that where the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas is not a necessary party and impleaded as proforma party, such names should get deleted from the array of respondents. 9. In the considered opinion of this court, such prescription cannot have any binding effect on the petitioners, whether to implead the Union of India as party respondent or not, nor such deletion can be sought by the respondent/applicant OMC’s to seek deletion of a co-respondent inasmuch as impleadment of Union of India by the writ petitioner is not having any bearing on the stand of the applicant. In the considered opinion of this court, present is a misconceived application. 10. Accordingly, the present I.A stands dismissed, however, this court has restrained itself from imposing any cost for now, for filing of such misconceived application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant