← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/6396/2008infructuous

M/S Sai Service Station v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And ORS.

2015-03-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy3 pages

AMENDED PETITION

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT

BILASPUR WPfC) No. 6.106/2008 PETITIONER:

M/s Sai Sendce Station, through Proprietor Nafrwar Lal Gupta, Aged about 47 years S/o Late Shri Bhagirathi Lal Gupta ^ Chhatamuda, Bypass Chowk RAJGARH (Chhattisgarh)

VERSUS

i.

Indian Oil Corporation Through its Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager Raipur Divisional Office Indian Oil Bhavan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg VIP Road, P.0. Ravigram, Telibandha RAIPUR, (Chhattisgarh) 2.

Sanjeev Kumar Chaudhary Sr. Divisional Sales Manager Indian 011 Corporation Limited Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg VIP Road, PO Ravigram, Telibandha Raipur (C.G.) 3.

Sri Satish Kumar Singh Sales Officer Indian Oil Corporation R/o 197, Krishna Vihar Colony Dhimarapara Road, Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh) 4.

Union of India Through the Secretary

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas New Delhi 5.

U.E. Jawele C/o Chief Manager (AAC) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Western Region, Marketing Division 254-0, Outer Annie Besant Road, Prabha Devi Mumbai (Maharashtra) 6.

S.K.Uraon C/o Chief Manager (AAC) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Western Region, Marketing Division 254-0, Outer Annie Besant Road, Prabha Devi (Maharashtra) 7.

T. K. Mandal Field Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Korba (C.G) 8.

Police Station Incharge Jute Mill, Police Chowki Raigarh (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:-

-fT^ ~y53i ^l^lcl^, ^Tft'y')l<5, tstpll'yy ^...y:.P.^O.."c!^:^2oi HWdl 5f>N(ch ^IT^T1EF ( ^i^^ ) <*>l<MV4l»iNtUc4t^ E^^ <Rl^K ^^RFRW^ SamJKoshv.

^n^r'^iTf^fN) ^CT^n^^flTO ^RTT^K^HCT^T SB :

Hon'ble Shri Justice P.

20.03.2015 J • Shri Jitendra Pali, coun| Shri N. No. Roy; counse^ Shri R. K. Gupta, counsj kl for the petitioner.

for respondents Ito 3 and 5 to 7.

d for respondent No.4.

Counsel for the petitior| become infructuous and theref er submits that the petition has fore he does not want to press the petition any further.

In view of the same, the instant writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous) Sdp. sam Koshy judge e^ "3.