Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010016372025 2025:GAU-AS:5493 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/478/2025 M/S SARMA AND CO. SILCHAR IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, S/O- LATE B.N. SINGH, R/O- JASHODA TALKIES COMPOUND, DISTRICT- TINSUKIA- 736171, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI. 2:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT- G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI- 400051. 3:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION) DIGBOI REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER TINSUKIA ASSAM- 786171. 4:CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER SILCHAR DIVISION Page No.# 2/3 5:SUNITA SINGH WIFE OF SHAILESH SINGH HAVING HER RESIDENCE AT D-73 NEHRU NAGAR BHOPAL- 462003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D GHOSH, MR. S. K. CHAKMA,MS H BETALA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I O C, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 05-05-2025 Heard Mr. S.K. Chakma, learned counsel for the petitioner, who prays that the matter may be adjourned, as an out of Court settlement is being attempted. 2. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 submits that no out of Court settlement is being attempted between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5, inasmuch as, there is nothing to settle. He submits that the requirement for running the retail dealership by the petitioner, would entail the submission of a No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs, as has been enumerated in the letter dated 20.12.2024 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). 3. On perusing the records, I find that this case has been listed on three earlier occasions before this Court. On all three occasions, starting from January, 2025, the matter has been adjourned on the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel. Today also, i.e. on 4th day of listing, a prayer for adjournment has been made by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. SK Chakma. 4. This Court is of the view that a petition cannot be kept pending by taking Page No.# 3/3 adjournments one after the another, without going into the issues, sought to be raised by the writ petitioner, especially when the impugned letter dated 20.12.2024 issued by IOCL to the petitioner, which has been made pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in WP(C) 9468/2019 needs to be answered by the petitioner. 5. In view of the stand of the petitioner’s counsel that an out of Court settlement is being attempted by the parties, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition should be closed, with liberty being given to the petitioner to approach this Court again, if the out of Court settlement fails. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as closed, with liberty being given to the petitioner to approach this Court again, to claim enforcement of any violation of his rights, if the out of Court settlement sought to be made, fails. JUDGE Comparing Assistant