Prakash Chandra Chaudhary v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And ORS
Patna High Court MJC No.2571 of 2015 (3) dt.14-10-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2571 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2019 of 2015 ====================================================== Prakash Chandra Chaudhary, son of Sri Tulsi Das Chaudhary, Resident of Falka Bazar, P.O. & P.S. - Falka, District - Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at G - 9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra, (East) Mumbai - 400051 through G.M., IOC, Bihar State Office, L.N.J. Bhawan, Patna-1
2. Mr. R.S. Dahiya, the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division) Bihar State Office, Loknayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna - 800001.
3. Mr. Najmi, the Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), Bihar State Office, Loknayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna - 800001.
4. Mr. Abhijeet Joshi, the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Regional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Marketing Division, Begusarai.
5. The Fresh L 1 Evaluation Committee, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bihar State Office, Loknayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna - 800001.
6. Sanjay Kumar Jha son of Sri Kamdeo Jha resident of village - Sohtha, P.O. & P.S. - Falka, District - Katihar, Bihar, Pin - 854118. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prahalad Kumar Bhagat For the Opp. Party- IOC : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra For the Opp. Party No.6 : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr. Abhimanyu Deo ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 14-10-2015 No case for contempt is made out inasmuch as the impugned action was taken by the opposite parties during the period when the writ petition itself stood dismissed for non-prosecution and thus the interim order passed in the writ petition also got wiped out. Even if the action complained of in this application would be subject to result of the writ petition, no case for contempt is made out. This contempt application is accordingly disposed of. (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U