Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5174 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.13981/2016)

Krishna Devi            Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

                 Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Having regard to the nature of short controversy

involved in this appeal, notice to Respondent No. 1 is

not  considered  necessary.  It  is  more  so  when  the

contesting respondent No. 2 is present on caveat.  

3. The  High  court  while  admitting  the  appeal  of

Respondent  No.  1  against  the  final  order  dated

1

Page 2

28.01.2016 passed by the Single  Judge in  W.P.  No.

19906/2013  filed  by  Respondent  No.  2  against  the

appellant  herein  and  Respondent  No.  1  passed  the

following interim order:-

“The  controversy  in  these  Letter  Patent Appeals  pertains  to  appointment  of  Retail Outlet  Dealership.  The  selection  committee placed first respondent-writ petitioner at No. 1  and  the  appellant  in  the  accompanying appeal at No. 2 without even inspecting the land offered by them.  After the merit list was circulated on 06.03.2013, the land offered by respondent  No.  1  was  inspected  on 07.05.2013  and  found  ‘suitable’  on 08.05.2013. Soon thereafter, on 27.05.2013, the  inspection  committee  asked  for  the ‘demarcation  of  the  land’  in  question.  The record  further  reveals  that  first  respondent claims  to  have  taken  on  lease  the  land measuring  2  Kanals,  9  Marlas  out  of  total land  measuring  22  Kanals  13  Marlas.  The land is owned by several co-sharers and one of  them  has  in  fact,  filed  even  partition proceedings.  The  said  co-sharer  had  raised objection against installation of retail outlet on the piece  of  land offered by respondent No. 1 as without partition, she cannot claim that  the  prime  front  portion  of  the  land abutting the main highway, has fallen to the share of her lessors.  

The appellant is unable to explain as to how could it  make selection or declare the land ‘suitable’ without verifying the record as it was still a joint holding and the affidavits relied upon by respondent No. 1 are not by all the co-sharers.  

2

Page 3

Similarly, the appointment of appellant in  the  accompanying  appeal  as  the  Retail Outlet Dealer on the basis of her placement at No. 2 in merit list is equally strange. The site  where  she  has  statedly  installed  the outlet is 40 kilometers away from the area, which  was   advertised  for  appointment  of dealership.

Prime-facie,  the  merit  list  appears  to have  been  prepared  for  the  reasons  other than the merit.  

Admit.  

Operation  of  the  order  passed  by learned  Single  Judge  shall  remain  stayed. Resultantly, neither respondent No. 1 nor the appellant  in  the accompanying  appeal  shall be allowed to operate the retail outlet. Fresh advertisement,  if  any,  by  the  Corporation, shall  be  subject  to  final  outcome  of  these appeals.  

4. Feeling aggrieved by the interim order passed by the

Division Bench, the appellant has filed this appeal.  

5.     Brief facts:

The  dispute  between  the  appellant  and

respondent  No.  2  relates  to  allotment  of  retail

dealership  of  the  Petrol  Pump  of  the  Indian  Oil

Corporation Ltd.  (respondent  No.  1)  located between

Km stone 94-97 as S.H. 11 as Sonepat as mentioned

3

Page 4

in  Advertisement  (Ann.  P1)  at  item  No.  115.

Respondent No.  2 questioned the allotment made to

the  appellant  in  aforementioned  writ  petition

successfully before the single Judge giving rise to filing

of two  appeals before the Division Bench. One is filed

by  the  appellant  and  other  by  the  Indian  Oil

Corporation Ltd.  These appeals were admitted for final

hearing,  wherein  aforementioned  interim  stay  was

granted.

6. Without  going  into  more  details  of  the  issue

which  is  presently  seized  of  in  appeal  before  the

Division  Bench  in  the  two  pending  appeals  for  its

decision on merits, we are of the view that the High

Court should not have passed the interim order of the

nature which is impugned herein. Instead, in our view,

having regard to the factual scenario,  it could at best

direct the parties to maintain status quo as existed on

the date of impugned order, i.e., 25.04.2016 in relation

to petrol pump. On perusal of documents filed herein,

4

Page 5

we find that the appellant (a widow) has been running

the petrol pump in question for more than a year. In

this view of the matter, the prime facie case, balance of

convenience   and  irreparable   loss  was  more  in

appellant’s favour rather than  in favour of respondent

No. 2.  

7. We  accordingly  allow  the  appeal,  set  aside  the

stay granted by the Division Bench and instead direct

the parties to maintain status quo as existed on the

date of  the order,  i.e.,  25.04.2016 in relation to the

subject matter of the appeal, i.e., Petrol Pump located

between Km stone 94-9 on S H 11 (at  S.N.  115) at

Sonepat as specified in Ann. P-1 advertisement  notice.

8. We  request  the  High  court  to  hear  both  the

appeals, i.e., LPA No. 649 of 2016 (O&M) and LPA No.

650 of 2016 (O&M) expeditiously uninfluenced by our

observations as these observations are made only for

the purpose of deciding stay but not the merits of the

5

Page 6

controversy,  which  is  presently  sub  judice in  two

appeals before the High Court.  

                                    .……...................................J.                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                  

                    ………..................................J.                      [ASHOK BHUSHAN]

New Delhi, May 16, 2016.

6