Mis.Kesari Marine Service v. The lndian Oil Corporation Limited

Order

Heard Sri S.S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned senior designated counsel representing the learned counsel Sri S.N.Chidambara Sastry, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandez, learned Standing Counse! for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The oetitio ner aooroached the Court seekin o Draver as u nder: ".... issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the e-mail communications dated 21.02.2025 at 17.00 hours and the e-mail communication dated 0t.04.2025 at 19.25 hours (from Mr.A.Karthik and Mr.Raju AM, purporting to act on behalf oF the 1't and 2nd respondents) Cancelling the LOA dated 20.02.2025 issued to the petitioner on a wrong premise that by 2\.O3.2025, 30 days have lapsed from the date of LOA makinq it liable for cancellation as arbitrary illegal unjust and as in violation of the principles of natural justice and issue a consequential directions directing the 1't and 2nd Respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the contract work/s as per the LOA dated 20.02.2025 issued to it and to permit the petitioner to carry out and execute the work order dated 12.03.2025 and other work orders issued to it and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case." PERUSED THE RECORD:- 2 SN,J \\'.P.1"o.15034 2025 The se of h etiti n h averments_ made bv the oetitio ner in the affidavit filed bv errns ooort of the o sent writ Detition is as h c-E-deE The I't respondent had issued a Tender Notice bearing NO.SRCC/RIM /PT/l5TlTAPSO/2024-25 for bunker suppty of black. oil irnd white oil through tanker bargi:s to the coastal/forei3n run sea going vessels berthed at inrler harbor, outer harbcr, and outer anchorage of vizag port. In ..esponse to the said Terrder Notice petitioner along with others, submitted their tende:r's. The 1't respondent accepted the tender submitted trv t6" O",, oner and the 1tt respondent by a letter dated 20.0it,2025 issued the Letter of Acceptance. As per the said l-oA tht: period of contract is for three years frorr the date of the LoA arrd it is extendable for a further period o.9 months on nlutual consent in line with Gel4 conditions,. The 1rt respondent issued to the petitioner the work order bearing No.70BBl42S dated 12.03.2025 for transporting white oil and black oil to :lastal and foreign run vessels calling at Vizag port through tanl.:er barges (small category barges). p,s per the normal pract ce and procedure in vogue the petitioner has to execute the rvork within a period of 30 days from the date of work ,trder. l he work order did not stipulate any tinre limit for \ \ 3 SN,J w P No. l5034 2025 execution. The petitioner received an e-mail from one of the officials of the 1't respondent in February 2025 stating that the petitioner should keep its barge ready on or before 2L'03'2025 failing which the LoA is liable for cancellatioi' It is further the specific case of the petitioner that the implement and execute the work order petitioner ls ready to , given by the 1st respondent once clearance is received from Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. The petitioner infact made a request for the clearance of its barge from Kakinada Port initially on 03.03.2025, as the Respondents 3 and 5 did not take any action, the petitioner resubmitted its application dated 22.03.2025 and even approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court by filing W.P.No.8234 of 2025 seeking prayer as under: "...to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not issuing to the petitioner the clearance/no objection for the movement of the petitioner's barge CAPSTAR1 as per its request/application made through Official Portal dt.03.03.2025 resubmitted on 22.03-2025 as arbitrary illegal and as contrary to the relevant Rules Regulations and the established practice in processing such requests and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith grant the clearance/no objection for the movement of the petitioners barge CAPSTAR1 from Kakinada Port to Visakhapatnam Port for supply of black oil and white oil as per the contract awarded to the petitioner for such supply by the respondent, And i I I \\r.p.l,Io. t5034 2sili (b) dr:clare the proposed action of the Respondent 1 rn thr,3atening to cancel the letter of acceptance dt 20022025 as per the E mail communication dt 21032025 of one of the officials of tire 1st Resprtndent as arbitrary illegal improper as in violati,rn of the principles of natural justice ,lnd as unjust and issue a consequential direction direct the Resprt rdent 1 not to take any such p-recipitate action against the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to execL te the work order in accordance with tht,r letter oF ac(:eptance dt 20 O22OZS issued by the 1ST respondent to the petitioner, (c) and pass...,, th sar wn ted 2.O .202 ln u nder: ti nA Hi h .P.N .82 4of O25 obse rvin q as 'The above writ petition is filed to declare, the action - of reslondents 2 and 3 in not issuing the clearance / no objection certificate to the petitione. Fo. the movement of the..pr::itioner's barge CAPSTAR_1 as per its request / applicar:ion made through official portal OateO O l.O:.ZO2S, resubrlirred on 22.8.f025, as iilegat anJiiOitrrrv.

()ne more prayer is sought in the writ petition to declarr: the action of 1.t respondent in thre,ttening to cancel ',he letter of acceptance dated 20.02.2025 aiper the e-rrail communication dated 21.03.2025, as iilegal and artitrary. In respect of the first prayer in the writ pe:tition, the port au:horities issued clearance vide E.M.No. Lt43/2024_ .25, dat,3d 27.03.2025. Since the clearance *-, g.unt"O by the :Znd respondent, no further orders are ir:quired in r-espect of the first relief is concerned. Irr respect of the second relief is conce commur ication dated Ot.O4.2O2S, the 1st cancelk:rJ the LOA dated 20.02.2025 issued the petitioner. rned, by the rr,rspondent in favour of 5 SN,J W.P.No.l5034 2025 Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the same was communicated to the petitioner through e-mail. In fact, the same was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to amend the prayer. List the matter on L6.04.2025." It is further the specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent delayed the port clearance. It gave clearance after the writ petition was filed in A.P. High Court. The clearance was given on 27.03.2025 and on 28.03.2025 itself the barge moved out of Kakinda Port and reached the Visakhapatnam Port, and was available for any inspection. It is further the case of the petitioner that one Mr.Karthik sent the e-mail on 20.03.2025 stating that the offered barge has not been positioned till that date and advised the petitioner to position the Barge within 30 days of LoA that is 21.03.2025 failing which the LoA is liable tor cancellation. The petitioner by reply e-mail dated 20.03.2025 had informed the factual situation and informed them that the barge will be ready by

31.03.2025. Though the barge was readyr its clearance was delayed by the arbitrary action on the part of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner received the clearance on the night 6 u,.p.\o liola lili of 2.7.03.2(\25. The barge moved out of the Kakintida port and reached tl-r: Visakhapatnam port the next day i.e., 28.03.2025, the LoA is:;ued to the petitioner is dated 20.02.202!:;. The Barge was ready I>y 28.03.2025. The period of 30 days di,J not exp.re by 27.03.2C25 It is ltrther the case of the petitioner that on 01.04.2025 at 19:24 h lurs petitioner received an e_mail communication by one Sri Raju AM, stating that the LoA/work ord€,r issued in favour of th: petitioner "stood cancelled,, as the pel:itioner had fa iled to c,f fer the barge for rnspection by IoC,,Authorized independen: Surveyors, before the due date 21.03.2025, t.e 30 days frorn the date of LoA. This wasnot anv show-E use n a e ho td a e eded bv titi ner tha the t r ln ti nb anv oft he L o w lc en th officials of ! e lst D rto of thr ev of the 1't t u n ilater llv withouti ssuin anv Drior sho bv so me oth is valid for a ued bv the com Detent Authoritv not have bee n ca ncell ed u sc__rctlee A I eve resDonde f 1.t o s r h e th r the orese nt WritP titi n. DIscussI AND N NC US a ed hi c ur b fi o DISCU ssro 7 SN,J W.P.No. 15034 2025 4 The learn ed Se ior Cou sel aD nno n behalf of u h submissio s:- i) The proceedings of the respondent Nos.l & 2, dated 01.04.2025 communicated by e-mail to the petitioner that its LOA, dated 20.02.2025 and the Work Order stands cancelled as the Barge of the petitioner was not positioned by 21.03'2025 is in clear violation of principles of natural justice, since no prior notice had been lssued to the petitioner informing the petitioner about the said proposed action of the respondent Nos'1 & 2 and calling for petitioner's explanation prior to cancelling the said LOA. ii) The LOA of the petitioner is dated 20.02.2025 and even if within 30 days of the LOA, the Barge has to be inspected by the IOC authorized independent surveyor, the said 30 days period did not expire by 21.03.2025 since the month February has only 28 days and admittedly, the 30 days period from 20'02'2025 did not exPire bY 21.03.2025. iii) The Work Order issued to the petitioner is dated t2'03'2025 and cancelling the LOA, on the ground of expiry of 30 days by 21.03.2025, even before the completion of 30 days period is 8 o SN,J \\/ I) No.15034 2025 highly illecral, arbitrary and malafide and IS interrded only to favour oth e rr tenderers. iv) The I)etitioner had made a detailed 28.O3.202a through e_mail, reJ.tresentatiOn, but howevei, the sarne had not been consiCered as on date. v) Not perrrritting the petitioner to complete the corrtract works as per LOa, dated 20.02.2025 issued to the petitioner and cancelling 1.he LOA, dated 20.02.2025 issued to th:t petitioner on a wrong premise, that by 21.03.2025,30 days t.ave lapsed from the drrl.e of LOA making it liable for canceilatic:n is highly arbitrary, ill:gal, unjust and irrational. Ba secl_ on the afores senior des a d n ela DCtitioner, a su bmissio ns, the lea rned rI r o eh lf of P ho td al o eda r df' r.

5. The lea rned s a nd inq Co un el r r ti n L r SDon ent No .1 n sub mt ons: - e fl Indian o at h lf of t o hth ef lt wt i) The petil:ioner filed W.p.No.B234 of 2025 on the file of High (:ourt at Amaravathi and a representat;ion was 9 SN,J W.P.No.l5034 2025 made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that steps would be taken to amend the prayer challenging the impugned order of the 1't respondent, dated 01.04.2025 cancelling the LOA, dated 20.02.2025 issued in favotrr of the petitioner before A.P.High Court and the petitioner instead approached the Telangana High Court and filed the present W.P.No.15034 of 2025 and the same amounted to forum shopping and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed For in the present Writ Petition. ii) The petitioner without withdrawing the W.P'No'8234 of 2025 filed on the file of A.P.High Court by the petitioner herein cannot seek any relief in the present Writ Petition before the Telangana High Court. iii)There is no illegality in the proceedings, impugned, dated

01.04.2025 of the 1't and 2nd respondent herein, since the petitioner failed to offer the Barge for inspection by IOC/IOC authorized independent surveyors ready in all aspects for effecting bunker supplies before the due date 21.03.2025, i.e., within 30 days from the date of LOA and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief in the present writ Petition. l0 SN,J \\'. l'. rlo. 1-t034 2025 Based n the aforesaid submi ssrons, lea rn ed Stan dinq lf of h nden No n a Counsel 2, conte0 ds that the resentWrit P dism issed in !imini. t ition need s to be coN c LUSION:- 6 fn so Pe onr r a 5 I s v t r s ZZJIb)_e the Notice i vitin t der ( GEM Services) Te nde r No" IM 1 7 TAP o 2024-25 e same is extracted hereunder:_ "22J_. R CC-SROat Chen at. Jur di th te er b

22.7(b)_ for disputes after LOI and during cxecution stage -At all places in the GCC enclosed w ith the tender- document OWNER shall mean INDII\N OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DI\/ISION, Telani;itna and Andhra pradesh, with its of fice at Hyder:bad. The Court of jurisdiction for all rnatters under the tender shall be at Hyderabad,, As per th above referred Cla use, this Cou oolnes that the oresent WritPetitio ntsm a inta inable. 7, fn so far as the plea of the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is concerned that the present Writ petition is not maintainable, since I ( t1 SN,J W.P.No.l5034 2025 petitioner filed W.P.No.8234 ol 2025 on the file of the High court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati is not tenable in view of the simple fact as borne on recorfl that the said W.P. had been filed on the file of A.P.High Court with prayer as under: '...to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not issuing to the petitioner the clearance/no objection for the movement of the petitioners barge CAPSTAR1 as per its request/application made through Official Portal dt 03.03.2025 resubmitted on 22.03.2025 as arbitrary illegal and as contrary to the relevant Rules Regulations and the established practice in processing such requests and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith grant the clearance/no objection for the movement of the petitioners barge CAPSTARl from Kakinada Port to Visakhapatnam Port for supply of black oil and white oil as per the contract awarded to the petitioner for such supply by the respondent And b declare the proposed action of the Respondent 1in threatening to cancel the letter of acceptance dl 20.02.2025 as per the E mail communication dt 21.03.2025 of one of the officials of the 1't Respondent as arbitrary illegal improper as in violation of the principles of natural justice and as unjust and issue a consequential direction direct the Respondent 1 not to take any such precipitate action against the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to execute the work order in accordance with the letter of acceptance dt 20.02.2025 issued by the 1't respondent to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case' 12 SN,J W.P.i"Io.15034 2025 Services, Tender/GEM The present Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein as per Clause 22.1(b) of the Notice Inviting Tender No.SRCC/ RI M / pT / LS7 / T APSO / 2OZ4-25 ( referred to and extracted above) with a specific prayer which is different from the prayer sought for in W.p.No.g234 of 2O25 filed by the petitioner herein on the file of A.p.High Court. The 'prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present W.P,No.15O34 of 2O2S is extracted hereunder:_ ".......issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring il.re e_mail comntunications dated 2I.02.2025 at 17.00 hotrs and the e-mail communication dated 01.04.2025 at 19.25 hours (from Mr.A.Karthik and,Mr.Raju AM, purportin(l to act on behal'of the 1.t and 2nd responOenisj Cancelling the LOA dated 20.02.2025- is-sue.d to the peiitioner on a wrong premise that by 21.03.2025, 30 days have lirpsed frori the c.rte of LOA making it liable for cancellation as arbitrary illegal unjust and as in violation of thr: principlei of nat:ral justice and issue a consequential directions direct ng the 1st and 2nd Respondents to allow the petiticrrrer to complete the contract work/s as per the LOA dated .10.02.2025 issued to it and to permit thr) petitioner to car-7 out and execute the work order dated 12.03.2025 and otrer work orders issued to it and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may der-.m fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.. borneo nr petiti ner h ret takinqin oconsidera tion the fact as t for bv the t e h w .8 34 of 25 n fit o i 13 SN,J W.P.No. 15034 2025 A.P.Hiq Court and the Draver souqh for in the 34 f 202 on t. .P.No.1 f the Telanqana Hioh Court bein differe t from ch the oresent Writ Petition is tainabl as Der Clause 2-7(b) oftheN ice Inv ti no Tend er oDrnes tha Servtces, /GEM Tender RCC IM P L57 o 4-25 f rre extr cted ab ve). In so far as the facts not in dispute are concerned, it 8. is true that by a letter, dated 2O.O2.2O25, the 1't respondent issued the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to the petitioner herein, as per the said LOA, the period of contract is for three years from the date of LOA and it is extendable for a further period of O9 months on mutual consent in tine with GeM conditions, but however, the 1"t respondent issued to the petitioner the Work Order bearing No.7O881429 for transporting White Oil and Black Oit to Coastal and Foreign run vessels calling at Vizag port through tanker barges (small category barges) only on ]-2.03.20,25.It is also a fact borne on record that the Work Order issued to the petitioner did not stipulate any time limit for execution, but however the impugned t4 o SN,J \\' P.N,o. l5(134 2025 proceedings of the 1"t & 2n,t

01.04.2025 respondent/ dated through e-maal had been communacated to the petitioner informed the petitioner that its l_.OA, dated 2O.O2.2O28 and the Work Order stands canceiled as the Barge of the petitioner was not positioned by 21.O3.2025 i.e., within :30 days from the date of LOA.

9. This Court opanes that even though the date of LOA issued to the petitioner is dated 2O.O2.2O25 fact remains that admittedry, the work order issued to the petitioner is only on 12.O3.2O25 and the petitioner admittedly can commence his work only after receipt of the Work Order from the 1', respondent and not earlier than that, and therefore, this Court opines that the action of the 1.t & 2nd respondent in cancelting the Work Order on the ground that petitioner faited to offer the Barge for inspection by IOC/IOC authorized independent surveyors ready in all aspects for effecting bunkers supplies before the due date 21.03.2025 i.e., within 3O days from the date of LOA is not only arbitrary, whimsical, mechanical, but also highly unreasonabte, unfair and unjust. 15 SN,J W.P.No.l5034 2025

10. It is atso borne on record and even admitted by the learned standing appearing on behalf of the respondents that admittedly, prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings of the ltt & znd rebpondent, dated OL.O4.2O25 communicated by e-mail to the petitioner' informing the petitioner that its LOA, dated 20'02'2025 and the Work Order stands cancelled, the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of personal hearing and admittedly, as borne on record, no specific show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner about the proposed action contemplated by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and further, calling for explanation from the Petitioner. A) The A xCo IN u me 200 12S 40i M NAT PAN Y& TEH v.S TEO fiA PRAD H& NO ER,, 10 11 o as under : "Para 1O: The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importan-ce when a quasi-judicial body .embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any issue. These principles are well settled. T6 SN,J \\r.1,.lr o.15034 2025 r t o ton. inativ It sh uld a DDriSe this _ Drr ciDle. seh has ee . Tim qrveI for the ourDOSe Should be adeo uate so as to h ceofan otice ofth e kind and su ch reasona ble a d Thus. it is but ssenti o come wh I that a Dartv sho td VI be Dut on notice of the case before anv adverse ord er is ssed aqa inst him. Th is is one of the most imooltant orincioles ot It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When tie historic docunrent was made at Runnymede in 121!i, the first statutcry recognition of this principte found it:; way into the "l4anga Carta". The classic exposition of ::iir Edward Coke of natural jus tice requires to "vocate, interrogate and e rljudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. of Works the principle was thus Wand:;',vorth Board stated: (ER p.420). "Even Go himself did not oass ce UDON A am be re he was called uoo nto make_ his defence. 'A am' ( savs God), 'whe re art thou?_ Hast tho not eaten of the tree whe reof I an thee t at thou shouldest not eat". Since then the principle has b een chiseled, lro n ed and refin ed enriching its content. I ud icia I treatment has added ight and luminosity to the concept, tikr, polishing of a dia mond. Para _1 1 ustice are those ru les whichh ave been lai d down bv the courtsas beinq the mini mum Drotectionofth e riqhts of the individual qainst the arbitrarv orocedu re that mav be adoDt dbv a iudi cia l, uasi-i ud icial and administra tve authoritv while makin an order aff ctrno t ose fl hts. T ese ru les are intend oreve[t such authority from doino iniustice,, " Pri nci Dles of natu r n B) In ,'MANG LAL V. STATE O F M.P.. reDorted in t2 o4) 2SCC oaqe 44 7 a o-Judq e Bench of Aoex Court held that the fln ev nif n h o r I SN,J W.P.No.l5034 2025 a statuto silence should be ta ken to amolv the need to observe the orincioles of natural iustice where su bsta tial riohts of Darties are a ected: (SCC o.453- 54, oar 1O) observed as under: "70. Even if a sta ute is sile A there could he nothino h thereun e a'nd ereare no I m no ,n riohts a d interest are li, elv to be affe bv the it a orders that mav he oassed, and makin reou ment to followafairo ure before takino a decision- unless the statute rovides otherwrse. d ,nto The orincioles of n tural iustice must be unocc oied intersti ces of the s tute, untess there to the contrarv. No form or isa lear manda procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a titigant's defence or stand' Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural iustice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural iustice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principtes of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary ts to secure ustice or to Drevent intendment. Its at miscarriaoe of iust, ce. Princiole's of natural iustice do not suDDlant the law, but suoolement it. These rules operate onlv in areas not covered bv anv law validlv made. Thev are a means to an end and not an end in themselves." I8 SN,J \\'.1' \ r. I5034 2025 In "CANTONME NTB ARD V. TA MANI DEVt", c) reported irl 19 enc of th sc Darte s 2 c e 1 a o- d ule of au ial m Da rt of Article 14. Simil a rlv, in "DTC v Suoo (1) cc in( 1991) S" re MAZDOO RCO NGRES 60 ex Cou o enfo rces the eo ua !atv cla u se in Article L4. e Th erefo re. ra lv ule I audi alteram Dartem a n hich viol es e s arbitra and viola ive of t Articl e 14. e o

11. Thi Co vtew of e fact as on record that the LOA. dated 20.02.2O25 issued bv the ltt resoo nden inf VO tio er tn ica ted the Deri od of contract s threev rs fr omthe dateofth e at he said er odi ex enda ble f af rth consent in tjne with GeM conditions and the been cancel-!ed all wi h t on son u me had earin qto the etitio opoortunitv _ of Derso u n b t e sh w- o ce ntim tinq th e c ti n L bv the 1 2 d al n for ex !an t l9 SN,J W.P.No.l5034 2025 n o h said a ion wa n n N 1 had' u er neo r of mind, malafidelv L2. In view of the fact that the petitioner vide her representation. dated 01.04.2025 at 12:58 informed the respondent Nosl & 2 herein that the petitioner's Barge 's looo/o ready for inspection and is awaiting allotment of work and since the same had not been considered as on date, this Court opines that the request of the petitioner needs to be considered and the impugned decision of the respondent Nos.1 & 2, dated OL.O4'2O25 communicated by e-mail to the petitioner informing the petitioner that its LOA, dated 20.02.2O25 and the Work Order stands cancelled needs to be reconsidered in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in the light of the reasoning and conclusion as arrived at as above.

13. Ta ino in cons ideratio n: 20 SN,J \\z.l'.I'lo.l 5034 2025 a) The facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counset for Indian Oil Corporation Limited appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. c) The representation of the petitioner dated Ot.O4.2OZS wherein no orders had been passed as on date, d) The impugned proceedings of the respondent Nos.1 & tZ, dated O1.O4.2O25 communicated by e_mail to the petitioner. e) The LOA, dated 2O.O2.2O25 issued to the l)etitaoner by the 1st respondent. f) The Work Order, dated 12.03.2025 issued to the petitioner by the 1't respondent g) The fact as borne on record, that the petitioner was not provided wath an opportunity of personal hearing nor a show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned Proceedings of the 1"t o1.O4.2025. respondent, dated 2t SN,J w.P.No.l5034 2025 h) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above)enlisted below:- (i) (2009) 12 SCC 4O in Uma' Nath Pandey & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (ii) (2004) 2 SCC page 44T, an Mangilal Vs. State of M.P., (iii) (2023) 6 scc 1 in state Bank of India vs. Rajesh Agarwa!, (iv) (1992) Supp (2) SCC Page 5O1, in Cantonment Board Vs. Taramani Devi, In the light of the discussion, reasoning and conclusion arrived at para Nos. 4 to 12. i) The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth vide petitioner's representation, dated O1.04.2025 through e-mail and further reconsider the impugned decision of the 1 & 2nd respondent, dated O1.o4.2O25 communicated by e- mai! to the petitioner, informing the petitioner that its LOA, dated 2O.O2.2O25 and Work Order stands cancelled in accordance to law, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in ) ) the judgments (referred to and extracted above), in conformaty with principles of natural justice, by I I 22 o SN.J \\'.1'.l.lo. I 5034 2025 providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders wathin a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till the exercise as indicated as above is initiated and concluded by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, by passing of appropriate orders duly considerang petitioner's representation, dated O1.04.202S and duly reconsidering the impugned proceedings, dated 01.04.2025 of the 1't & 2nd respondent as per the specific directions as indicated as above within the time period as stipulated as above, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner,and its Barge CApSTAR 1. There shail be no order as to costs. M iscell,: reous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed, -[l /ll //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTlo[I OFFICER 1 3e, tvlaharma canoni no-al 1i'rrntrro"ron Hl gt'Hi,"o l, The lndian Oil Corporation Limited, Ivlarketing Division Souther I Region 3f"?i9 I EB ; lan. The authorizrxl officer, lndian Oil.Corporation Limited, marketrn.l division, I elangana.ar'(l Andhra pradesh, UVO6raOai' One CC to Sri S. N. Chidambara Sastry, Advocate [OpUC] One CC to Sr Dominic Fernandez, SC for lndian Oil Corporatior Limited[OPU() Two CD Copies I To, 2 3 4 5 TJ l\ HlGH COURT CC TODAY VACATION COURT DATED:0710512025 ORDER .,) 4, WP.No.150iJ4 of 202 3 +, (, ,; _' 7 .- ii a.' , \ ;,1.,", , \:. "9 s* 5t\ ';.' :-- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS