1 2025:CGHC:20226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2225 of 2025 1 - M/s Maa Kali Fuels Through- The Proprietor- Deendayal Sahu Son Of Late K.R. Sahu, Aged Aboutr 65 Years. Resident Of House No. C-11, Mitan Bihar, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through- The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Vip Road, O. P. Ravigram, Telibandha, District- Raipur, ( C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. S. R. J. Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/IOC Ltd. : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/05/2025 1. Heard Mr. S. R. J. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate for the respondent/IOC Ltd appearing on advance copy. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent/IOC raised a preliminary objection stating that only notice dated 08.04.2025 RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.06 18:54:35 +0530 2 (Annexure P/11) has been issued against the petitioner regarding cancellation of dealership, if the petitioner will reply, it shall be taken into consideration and he will be given proper opportunity of hearing and if exigency would arise than only necessary orders will be passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent for appointment of MS/HSD B site Retail Outlet Dealership at Location on LGS within 4 Kms from Village Bhainsa Towers Balodabazar on NH 130-B, District-Raipur, the petitioner has offered the land bearing khasra no. 52 admeasuring area 0.53 situated at Village Karma, P.H.No. 38, Tahsil-Arang, District-Raipur (C.G.), which is recorded in the name of petitioner's wife namely Smt. Gayatri Sahu. He further submitted that the offer submitted by the petitioner, was considered by the respondent and the evaluation team was inspected the land of petitioner in the month of February, 2020 and given report to the effect that the land/site found suitable according to the new circular. On the basis of above report given by the evaluation team of respondent, the letter of appointment was issued in favour of petitioner on 29.08.2023 and further an agreement to this effect was executed in favour of petitioner on 31.08.2023. It is also submitted by the petitioner that before issuance of letter of appointment, the petitioner has completed all the necessary formalities and also obtained the no objection certificate from the different authorities. Thereafter the HT Line of 3 11 KVA was passing over the offered land of the petitioner and the petitioner has made request before the Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur for shifting the said HT Line under the supervision of Class-A Contractor, at the cost of the petitioner. Accordingly the HT Line passing over the land of petitioner, was shifted away from the land of petitioner. The said HT Line was shifted much prior to the issuance of letter of appointment issued in favour of petitioner. However, all of sudden on 07.01.2025 the respondent has issued show cause notice for termination of dealership of petitioner on the ground that HT Line of 11 KVA was passing over the offered land of the petitioner and the petitioner was show caused that why the dealership of petitioner may not be terminated. On 20.01.2025, the petitioner has made request before the respondent for extension of time and submission of prima facie reply regarding show cause notice dated 07.01.2025. On 10.02.2025 the respondent has again issued show cause notice and directed the petitioner to file reply within 15 days. On 21.02.2025 again the petitioner has made request before the respondent for reasonable opportunity and proper representation regarding show cause notices dated 07.01.2025 & 10.02.2025. On 08.04.2025 the respondent has issued impugned final show cause notice for termination of dealership of petitioner and directed the petitioner to file reply within 15 days to the effect that why the Petrol/HSD Pump Dealership Agreement executed 4 between the petitioner and respondent on 31.08.2023 should not be terminated which is bad in the eyes of law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 5. As the petitioner has come before this Court in a notice, as such the petition is not maintainable. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this instant petition with a liberty to approach before the authority concerned against the notice dated 08.04.2025, in case the petitioner approaches before the respondent authority along with copy of this order within 10 days, in turn, the respondent authority is directed to consider his application/representation/reply and after affording proper opportunity of hearing, his claim may be decided within an outer limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty as prayed for. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi