Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040004112021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/119/2021 SHRI TOLI KAMDAK S/O LT. MENTO KAMDAK, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHIRME VILLAGE, PO/PS BASAR, LEPARADA DISTRICT, AP. VERSUS THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTION, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR, JUNG MARG, BANDRA(EAST), MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA 2:GENERAL MANAGER Age: 0 Occupation : INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD NORTH EAST INTEGRATED STATE OFFICE EAST POINT TOWER BAMUNIMAIDAN GAUHATI-21 ASSAM. 3:DY. GENERAL MANAGER (RS) Age: 0 Occupation : OIL CORPORATION LIMITED TINSUKIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE SRIPURA PO/PS TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM. 4:SMTI. BAMIK KAMDAK Age: 0 Page No.# 2/5 Occupation : W/O LT. RIJJIR KAMDAK PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KAMDAK VILLAGE PO/PS BASAR LEPARADA DISTRICT AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, Ligam Nochi,Bomchi Taipodia,Idak Bam Advocate for the Respondent : Tabit Tapak, SC (IOC),D K Sharma BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 27.02.2025 Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, IOCL representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The dispute revolves around the continuation of supply to the Retail Outlet Dealership, namely, M/s Kamdak Automobiles Service under the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner, the said Retail Outlet was allotted to the petitioner’s paternal uncle, namely, Rijjir Kamdak, by way of Letter of Intent dated 14.10.1985. The petitioner claims that as his uncle was not having any land, father of the petitioner, late Mento Kamdak became a partner of the RO dealership who was in possession of a land measuring 18669 Sq meters at the proposed location and had better financial position. After the death of the uncle i.e., Rijjir Kamdak, there are certain disputes among the legal heirs/family members and due to such disputes by order dated 24.03.2021, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. stopped supplies to the said Retail Outlet. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. Page No.# 3/5 3. The other contender claiming a right in the Retail Outlet is arrayed as respondent No. 4. Although notices were duly served upon the said respondent, she has failed to enter appearance. 4. This Court under its order dated 21.04.2021, stayed the operation of the impugned notice dated 24.03.2021, primarily on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as it was contended by the petitioner that such discontinuation was without notice. 5. Mr. D. K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel representing the IOCL submits that the IOCL was compelled to take the aforesaid action due to dispute among the partners/family members of the Retail Outlets. He further contends that such action was taken taking recourse to the guideline issued in this regard, namely, Detailed Guideline for Reconstitution of Retailed Outlet/SKO-LDO Dealership. 6. He also contends that there is a prescription that when there are disputes, certain procedure is to be followed for reconstitution of the dealership, more particularly, when the original proprietor dies. And therefore, according to him, this writ petition is premature, as the petitioner has already filed a representation before the IOCL authority inasmuch as IOCL will take a final decision on the aforementioned representation after providing a reasonable opportunity or hearing to the petitioner, as well as the respondent No. 4, and other stakeholders, if any. 7. In his contention, Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for IOCL also refers to a decision of Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 85/2022, in the case of Sanjoy Kumar Jalan vs. M/s M. P. Jalan, wherein, this Court granted liberty to the Page No.# 4/5 legal heirs of the original owner of the aforesaid Retail Outlet which was subject matter of the writ appeal to sort out their differences and revert to the respondent Corporation for reconstitution of the firm. It was further provided that if the above process was not completed within a period of 6(six) months, the respondent Corporation shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps as per applicable guidelines. Mr. Sharma submits that similar order can be passed in this writ petition, taking note of the similar nature of facts i.e., the dispute amongst the legal heirs/partners of the original owner. 9. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes to such submission and contends that similar order can be passed. 10. Considered the arguments and also perused the guidelines, more particularly, Clause G which prescribes reconstitution of commission dealerships, in the event of death of the proprietor/partners. There is also prescription under the Clause G as regards temporary arrangement of operation of dealership in case of proprietor/partners, which allows temporary arrangement to be made through legal heirs of proprietor/surviving partner(s) to continue the dealership till formal reconstitution under “Holiday Scheme”. 11. In terms of Sub-Clause- 10 of Clause G of the Policy Guidelines, in case the temporary arrangements for operation of dealership continues beyond 6(six) months, the option has to be given by the Corporation to run the dealership under the “Holiday Scheme” to the surviving partners for sorting out their issues within the reasonable time and revert back for the dealership. In terms of the aforesaid Clause, the burden is upon all the partners to come out with an amicable solution, failing which, the Corporation would have not to proceed under Sub-Clause 10 of Page No.# 5/5 Clause G. 12. Therefore, in the particular facts of the case, ends of justice would be met, if the legal heirs of the original owners/partners and other stake holders, may be given a liberty to sort out their differences and to revert to the respondent Corporation for reconstitution of the firm. Ordered accordingly. 13. It is provided that if the above process is not completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date of communication that may be issued in this regards by IOC to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 and/or any other stake holders. The respondent Corporation shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps as per applicable guideline. 14. In the interest of justice, the interim order passed earlier shall continue for a period of six (6) months from the date of communication as directed herein above or until the completion of the settlement process, whichever is earlier. 15. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 16. Parties to bear their own cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant