Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010165862025 2025:GAU-AS:11712 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2439/2025 THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN , ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST , MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, 400051 2: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (MARKETING DIVISION) REGIONAL CONTRACT CELL EASTERN REGION OFFICE2 GARIAHAT ROAD SOUTH KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 3: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS) INDIAN OIL AOD STATE OFFICE NOONMATI SECTOR 3 GUWAHAT VERSUS ARJUN CHANDRA BARMAN SON OF SACHINDRA CHANDRAN BARMAN, R/O SIMPAGURI, CHIRANG, ASSAM 783381 2:PINTU KUNDU S/O-ARUN KUMAR KUUPU R/O-SASTRI ROAD NEAR ISKCON DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 3:JALAL ALI S/O-AYNALALI R/O-CHATIBARGAON CHIRANG-723385 ASSAM 4:MAHENDRA SINGH S/O-KRISHNA SINGH GURUNANAK NAGAR Page No.# 2/5 P.O. NORTH BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783380. 5:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DEPTT. FOR PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY AND INTERNAL TRADE UDYOG BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110011 6:THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES HALL NO. 502 AND 507 LEVEL-5 BLOCK-B OLD CGO COMPLEX NH4 FARIDABAD121001. 7:THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES SAMAD HOUSE PLOT NO. 68 GANGA NAGAR UNIT-6 BHUBENESWAR-751001. 8. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-6. ASSAM. 8:THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER BTR CHIRANG ASSAM. 9:THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KAMRUP ASSAM 10:AZIZUL HAQUE S/O-LATE TMAN ALI R/O-VILL-CHATIPUR P.O. DHALIGAON CHIRANG ASSAM PIN-783385. 11:KIRAN ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY DILWARA SINGH S/O-LATE KARNEL SINGH R/O- CHAPAGURI ROAD GURUNANAK NAGAR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783380 12:MS PRASAD TRANSPORT REPRESENTED BY SANDEEP KUMAR PRASAD S/O-LAXMAN PRASAD Page No.# 3/5 R/O-CHAPAGURI ROAD P.O. DHALIGAON CHIRANG ASSAM PIN-783385 13:RAJESH KUMAR JAIN C/O- RAHUL KUMAR JAIN R/O-B.O.C. GATE P.O. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783380. 14:MS A KAND COMPANY REPRESENTED BY AJOY KUMAR YADAV BUDDHA MANDIR NAGAR P.O. DILIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786602 15:SARKAR ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY AKBAR ALI SARKAR S/O-USUF ALI SARKAR R/O- HOUSE NO. 31 NATIONAL HIGHWAY NEAR GAON PANCHAYAT OFFICE GORAIMAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARMA, MR. M K CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A M DUTTA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 01.09.2025 Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite parties/writ petitioners; Mr. R. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 & 9; and Mr. N. R. Surana, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 10, 13, 15 & 16. Page No.# 4/5 2. This is an application praying for deletion/striking out of the name of respondent No. 4, particularly the Union of India, from the array of parties in the connected writ petition, being WP(C) No. 8276/2022. 3. It is submitted at the Bar that a similar interlocutory application, which has been filed by the applicant/Indian Oil Corporation, in a similar matter, has been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.08.2025, passed in I.A.(C) No. 2435/2025. 4. Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel submits that in view of the Circular dated 16.12.2023, particularly paragraph No. 2 thereof, the present application for striking out of the Union of India as party respondent is maintainable. However, in view of the similar interlocutory application having been dismissed, the present application may not stand. 5. This Court, in I.A.(C) No. 2435/2025, on perusal of the paragraph No. 2 of the Circular dated 16.12.2013, has observed that the prescription under paragraph No. 2 cannot have any binding effect on the petitioner whether to implead the Union of India as party respondent or not, nor such deletion can be sought by the respondent/applicant to seek deletion of co-respondent inasmuch as impleadment of Union of India by the writ petitioner is not having any bearing on the stand of the applicant and thus held that the application is misconceived one and accordingly dismissed the same. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also taking note that the present application is similar and identical in nature to I.A.(C) No. 2435/2025, I am of the view that this application is also Page No.# 5/5 misconceived. More so, as a judicial propriety, no different view can be taken. 7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed and is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant