M/S.Miryalaguda Gas Agencies, v. Sri.Umakanth Prasad Singh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.2184 of 2015 DATED : 17.08.2016 Between:

M/s.Miryalaguda Gas Agencies, 4-127/1, Opp : Nagarjuna Talkies, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, rep., by its Partner, G.Rama Rao, S/o.Venkaiah, Aged about 55 yrs, Occu : Business, R/o.Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District & another .. Petitioners AND Sri Umakanth Prasad Singh, Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Office at 3-6-436 to 438, 3rd floor, Narspur house, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

.. Respondent

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.2184 of 2015 ORDER:

The following order is passed by this Court on 07.08.2015 in W.P.No.22287 of 2014 :

"Having regard to the facts of this case, the respondentcorporation is directed to consider the application of the second petitioner dated 13.07.2014. It is for the respondent corporation to obtain declaration from the petitioner that said application is on behalf of the first petitioner firm and after receiving such declaration, he shall consider the application for restoration of the dealership, according to the procedure envisaged by the respondent-corporation, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

2. Alleging that the order passed by this Court is not complied by the respondent, this contempt case is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the respondent passed order and expressed his inability to restore the dealership to the petitioners and also the technical problem for restoration of dealership, when cancellation of dealership is still not set aside. There is an order of status quo granted by this Court in W.P.No.18923 of 2009 and the said order of status quo still operates. The order of status quo was referable to proceedings dated 25.08.2009 for termination of dealership.

4. Since the Court directed for consideration of the application, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the orders of this Court

warranting initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.

5. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. It is needless to observe that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order rejecting the request for restoration of dealership, it is always open to them to work out their remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall stand closed.

____________________ ​ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 17th August, 2016 Rds