MOHALI PETROCHEM LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Company is a third party seeking review of the judgment dtd. 5/1/2023 rendered in CWP No. 7816 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by present respondent No.4 (Sh. Tejinder Goyal) was allowed with the following directions:-

(2.) The review petitioner Company's case is that during pendency of the writ petition, it was selected as adhoc dealer by the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for the retail outlet involved in the writ petition. The appointment letter/order, in this regard, containing the terms and conditions was issued to it on 3/1/2022 (Annexure P-5). In terms of the order dated 03. 01.2022, petitioner's selection/engagement as an adhoc dealer was for a period of one year, extendable to another one year with a further stipulation that its ad hoc appointment was to last till the appointment of regular dealer and also subject to termination by either party giving 15 days' written notice. The review petitioner further submits that the duration of its tenure to operate as an adhoc dealer for the retail outlet in question though ended on 3/1/2023, however, the respondent-Oil Corporation permitted it to continue to operate the retail outlet even in the month of January, 2023. That under the circumstances, the review petitioner bonafidely assumed that respondent-Oil Corporation has allowed it to run the retail outlet & extended the period of its operation by one year and with that assumption, the review petitioner continued to sell petroleum products on credit as per usual practice. It has sold petroleum products on credit worth Rupees two crores. The amount is yet to be recovered by it. The grievance of the review petitioner is that in compliance to the judgment dtd. 5/1/2023, the respondent-Oil Corporation has sent an e-mail to it on 20/2/2023 directing it to hand over the possession of retail outlet before 1/3/2023. It has been contended that handing over of retail outlet, at this stage, will cause financial loss to the review petitioner, as it will not be in a position to recover the amount, for which it has already sold the products on credit. Accordingly, prayer has been made for reviewing the judgment.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner very fairly submitted that there is no error apparent in the judgment dtd. 5/1/2023. He, however, submitted that to enable the review petitioner to recover the amount given by it on credit to others, the enforcement of the judgment be deferred by one year. This according to learned Senior Counsel will enable the review petitioner to operate the retail outlet for a further period of one year or such lesser period by which it will be able to recover the amount given by it on credit in form of sale of petroleum products. He further urged following specific points in support of his prayers: