Bombay High Court Directs Grievance Redressal Committee to Decide Pending Representation Within 15 Days in Distributorship Dispute. Court Restrains Allotment of Distributorship Pending Decision to Protect Petitioner's Rights.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 67
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Santoshi Jagdish Agrawal, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a Government of India enterprise. The dispute pertained to a distributorship. The petitioner had a representation pending before the Grievance Redressal Committee of the respondent. The court, after hearing both parties, passed a consent order directing the Committee to decide the representation within 15 days. Till such decision and for one week thereafter, the respondent was restrained from allotting the distributorship to any party. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the court again if the decision was adverse. The rule was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Grievance Redressal - Interim Relief - Representation pending before Committee under Grievance Redressal System - Court directed the Committee to decide representation within 15 days and restrained respondent from allotting distributorship until one week after decision - Held that interim protection is necessary to preserve petitioner's rights pending disposal (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent should be restrained from allotting distributorship pending decision on petitioner's representation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court directed the Committee under Grievance Redressal System to decide the petitioner's representation within 15 days. Till such decision and for one week thereafter, the respondent shall not allot the distributorship to any party. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the court if the decision is adverse. Rule disposed of.

Law Points

  • Consent order
  • Grievance Redressal System
  • Interim protection
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 477

Writ Petition No.5213 of 2009

2010-01-14

S.A. Bobde, Vasanti A. Naik

Shri J.B. Gandhi for petitioner, Shri P.D. Meghe for respondent

Smt. Santoshi Jagdish Agrawal

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition regarding distributorship dispute

Remedy Sought

Direction to decide pending representation and interim restraint on allotment of distributorship

Filing Reason

Petitioner's representation pending before Grievance Redressal Committee of respondent

Issues

Whether the respondent should be restrained from allotting distributorship pending decision on petitioner's representation.

Ratio Decidendi

Pending decision on a representation before a Grievance Redressal Committee, the court may grant interim protection to preserve the petitioner's rights by restraining the respondent from taking irreversible steps.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioner's representation which is said to be pending is directed to be decided within a period of 15 days, by the Committee under Grievance Redressal System of the respondent. Till such a decision and for a period of one week thereafter, the respondent will not allot the distributorship to any party.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5213 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. After hearing, the court passed a consent order on 14th January 2010.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Directs Grievance Redressal Committee to Decide Pending Representation Within 15 Days in Distributorship Dispute. Court Restrains Allotment of Distributorship Pending Decision to Protect Petitioner's Rights.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Termination of 23-Week Pregnancy Due to Fatal Cardiac Anomaly - Medical Board Opinion of Substantial Risk of Serious Handicap Justifies Abortion Under Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.