- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28986 WP No. 17620 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17620 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: R R ENGINEERING COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR, BRIDGETTINE WELFARE CENTRE CASA BRIGITTA, 10, BRUNTON ROAD ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. Y. SRINIVAS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT NO. B-3, IDA, AUTONAGAR, GAJUWAKA, VISHAKAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 012 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMOGH MASUR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA - 400 051 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MANAGER HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 3079/3, SADIQ NAGAR, J.B. TITO MARG, NEW DELHI-110 049 [COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956] Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28986 WP No. 17620 of 2025 2. CHAIRMAN INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA - 400 051 3. MARKETING DIVISION INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA - 400 051 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 4. MARKETING DIVISION SOUTHERN REGION INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, 139, UTHAMAR GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-600 03 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 5. MARKETING DIVISION KARNATAKA STATE OFFICE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, NO. 22, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28986 WP No. 17620 of 2025 MAHADEVAPURA WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, K. R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 6. MARKETING DIVISION, MANGALURU TERMINAL INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 P.B. NO. 6, PANAMBUR, MANGALURU - 575010 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR S T.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH /SET ASIDE THE LETTER BEARING REFERENCE NO. HO/ENGG/MTEP/28522053/TERMINATION NOTICE DATED 10.06.2025, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 (ANNEXURE-A), BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE CONTRACT STANDS TERMINATED, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28986 WP No. 17620 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has successfully participated in the tender issued by the first respondent, but is unsuccessful in completing the contractual work. The petitioner is aggrieved by the first respondent’s notice of termination dated 10.06.2025 [Annexure-A]. The controversy is steeped in facts, but the question for consideration, at this stage, given the petitioner’s primary contention is within a short canvas. 2. The petitioner chiefly contends that, as is permissible under the contractual terms, it has applied for an extension of time, and the first respondent, without considering such application, has issued the impugned notice for termination. Sri.Dhyan Chinnappan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is a procedural irregularity in the first respondent deciding to issue notice for termination of the work order without examining the merits of the petitioner’s request for an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28986 WP No. 17620 of 2025 extension of time. Sri Vigneshwar S. Shastri, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, while emphasizing that the petitioner has been granted extensions on earlier occasions, submits that this Court may not interfere because the application for extension of time is not considered. 3. It would suffice for this Court to observe that the petitioner could be entitled for extension of time notwithstanding the earlier orders, and the first respondent should consider the merits of such request and then pass orders of termination of the work order. The lack of application of mind would be obvious if the request is not at all considered. Therefore, this Court must intervene, but the consequential question would be whether this Court must set at naught the very notice because the petitioner's application for an extension of time is not considered. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28986 WP No. 17620 of 2025 4. If the decision on termination of the work order must be considered in an amalgam of factors, including the petitioner's right to seek extension of time, this Court must opine that it would be just and reasonable to dispose of the petition deferring the operation of the termination notice dated 10.06.2025 calling upon the first respondent to [a] consider the petitioner's request for an extension of time by a reasoned order in a time-bound manner, and [b] if the first respondent opines that the petitioner cannot be granted an extension of time, to ensure that the petitioner has a reasonable opportunity to respond to the present show cause notice. 5. This Court must also opine that if the first respondent’s order on the petitioner’s applications for extension of time is decided in a routine manner, it - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28986 WP No. 17620 of 2025 would not augur well for complete adjudication without precipitation and that the petitioner, if the first respondent opines against extension by way of a reasoned order, must respond to the show cause notice in so far as the other grounds and avail remedy with the Courts after the order on the termination of the Work Order if there is occasion for the same. In the light of the aforesaid: ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of deferring the implementation of the impugned termination notice dated 10.06.2025 [Annexure-A] subject to the decision on the petitioner's applications for extension of time [Annexures V and W] and the observations as aforesaid. [b] The first respondent shall communicate the order on the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28986 WP No. 17620 of 2025 petitioner's application for extension within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 55