Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010165872025 2025:GAU-AS:10555 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2437/2025 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 4TH FLOOR, EAST POINT TOWER, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 2: THE SENIOR MANAGER(RETAIL SALES) INTEGRATED DIVISIONAL OFFICER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD 4TH FLOOR EAST POINT TOWER BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI ASSAM 78102 VERSUS GITALI KALITA WIFE OF SRI PARITOSH DAS, R/O VILLAGE AGIA, GOALPARA, 783120 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI 3:THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY PARIVAHAN BHAWAN 1 SANSAD MARG NEW DELH Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARMA, MR. M K CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A SATTAR, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. M Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent Nos.2 & 3 in WP(C) No.7062/2021. 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. 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. Mr. H.K. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits 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 Page No.# 3/3 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.” 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, the 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