Shri. Anand Eknath Kakad v. Union Of India Thru Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And ANR

5 caw 1552 of 2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1552 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.11808 OF 2018 Anand Eknath Kakad ...

Applicant/Petitioner versus Union of India and Anr.

...

Respondents Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Belsare, Mr. Kunal Nallamwar I/by Mr. Amey Deshpande, for Applicant.

Mr. Chirag Mody with Mr. Sunil Gangan, Mr. Swapnil Shikhare I/by RMG Law Associates, for Respondent No.2.

CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

DATE: 10th JULY, 2019 P.C.:

1.

By the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the termination of his agency agreement by the Respondent No.2. The Writ Petition was placed before the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.P.Dharmadhikari & Revati Mohite Dere, JJ.) on 20 th February, 2019. This Court interalia directed the Respondents to provide documents demanded by the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order ; to give a hearing to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter, and to pass a fresh order within next six weeks. By the said order, it was also recorded that the Petitioner insists for restoration of the allotment order and agency by quashing the order of cancellation however taking the overall view of the matter, the Court was not inclined SSP 1/2

5 caw 1552 of 2019.doc to grant the request "at this stage".

2.

Respondent No. 2 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited, has admittedly breached the directions given by the said order dated 20th February, 2019. In view thereof, the Petitioner has filed the above Civil Application seeking restoration of his agency which is cancelled by the Respondent No. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that since they had to collect certain documents from third parties, there has been delay in complying with the order. If that be so, Respondent No. 2 ought to have informed the Court on 20th February, 2019 itself that the period of two weeks granted to provide documents and information would not be adequate. Even if the Respondent No.2 failed to do so, upon expiry of the period of two weeks, Respondent No.2 ought to have moved before this Court seeking extension of time to comply with the Order.

The explanation therefore, cannot be accepted. However, since the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 states that the documents & the information have now been provided to the Petitioner, as a last chance and only by way of indulgence, time to give a hearing to the Petitioner is extended by two weeks from today and to pass an order is extended by three weeks thereafter, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- by the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner within a period of one week from today. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J. ) SSP 2/2