Court No. - 44
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 265 of 2021 Applicant :- M/S J. Lal Filling Station Indian Oil Retail Outlet And Another Opposite Party :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Upadhyay,Pramod Bhardwaj Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rakesh Kumar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present review petition has been filed on the ground that certain facts noted by the Court in the judgment and order dated 28.7.2021 are incorrect and further the remedy for which, the petitioners have been relegated is not an effective statutory remedy. Clause 8.9 of the Marketing Guidelines which provides for appeal before the Dispute Redressal Forum cannot be treated as a bar in maintaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition against the termination order dated 1.4.2021 was, therefore, clearly maintainable.
With these submissions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the review applicants/petitioners that there occurs apparent error on the face of the record and the review petition is perfectly maintainable.
Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the review applicants/petitioners, suffice it to note that the fact regarding the tampering in the seal of the pulsar as noted in the judgment under review has been verified from the facts on record and is reflected from the order impugned.
The contention of the learned counsel for the review applicants that the said fact has been wrongly noted in the judgment under review is, therefore, wrong.
As regards the plea of the remedy under Clause 8.9 of the Marketing Guidelines, suffice it to note that having gone through the merits of the termination order, this Court had dismissed the writ petition being devoid of merits. However, while dismissing the writ petition, it was kept open to the petitioners to file appeal and it was clarified that in case such an appeal is filed, the observations made in the judgment under review will not come in the way of the petitioners.
In the said situation, the contention of the learned counsel for the review applicants/petitioners that the writ petition has been dismissed as not maintainable and the Clause 8.9 of the Marketing Guidelines is not statutory provision and will not act as a bar, is found wholly misconceived.
In any case, no error much less error apparent on the face of the record is found.
The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Brijesh