The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency in the allotment process of petrol pumps and the need for evidence to support claims of license renewal.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that the property described in the advertisement issued by IOC published in daily newspaper Bhaskar dated 18.02.2004 offering retail outlet shown at Item No. 148 Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur should not be and cannot be identified with the petrol pump which was allotted to the plaintiff by IOC on 27.02.2004 and in pursuance of which, the plaintiff has already started to run the petrol pump after getting license from the District Supply Officer, Jodhpur. It is submitted that the retail outlet at Bhagat Ki Kothi is proposed on the Pali- Bhagat Ki Kothi road whereas the plaintiffs petrol pump is situated at Jodhpur City - Salawas road.

2. According to the appellant-plaintiff , the plaintiff was invited by the respondent- IOC itself to help IOC in the matter of obtaining NOC for IOC from the District Collector, Jodhpur which they could not get despite the fact that they submitted application on 30.05.2002 seeking No Objection Certificate for installing the petrol pump. The plaintiff agreed and helped IOC in getting the NOC from the learned District Collector, Jodhpur and the District Collector, Jodhpur gave NOC to IOC, therefore, the plaintiff was invited by the IOC officers on 22.02.2004 and he was asked to submit application for allotment of petrol pump. The plaintiff , therefore, submitted an application before IOC for getting the petrol pump. The application is dated 23.03.2004 but was submitted before IOC on 27.02.2004. The plaintiff’s application was considered on the same day i.e., 27.02.2004 itself and on the same day, the plaintiff was asked to submit undertaking on stamp paper. On the same day, the plaintiff purchased the stamp of Rs. 100/-and submitted undertaking forthwith on 27.02.2004 itself . Thereafter, on 05.03.2004 a letter was issued by the officer of IOC to the District Supply Officer for issuing trading license in favour of the plaintiff . The District Supply Officer gave license for running the petrol pump in the name of the plaintiff on IOC’s recommendations. This license issued by the District Supply Officer, Jodhpur is valid upto 312.2005.

3. According to learned Counsel for the plaintiff , two facts are clear (1) that the petrol pump advertised by the respondent IOC at S. No. 148 cannot be identified with the petrol pump of the plaintiff and (2) the petrol pump was allotted to the plaintiff on ad hoc basis by respondent IOC for a period upto 312.2005 for the consideration of the work done by the plaintiff for IOC. Therefore, the plaintiff had and still has a reasonable expectation that its license to run the petrol pump will be continued upto further period of two years and during this period, the IOC has no power to allot the petrol pump to any person. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also submitted.

4. Before the trial Court, the Respondent No. 2 Rajkumar submitted an application for being impleaded as party defendant under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC and prayed that the petrol pump in question has been allotted to him as he has been duly selected by the Selection Board. The Respondent No. 2, therefore, was impleaded as party by the trial Court.

5. Both the respondents submitted separate replies to the injunction application.

6. The respondent IOC submitted reply to the injunction application before the trial Court and stated that the petrol pump advertised at S. No. 148 in the newspaper is the same petrol pump, which is presently in occupation and is being run by the plaintiff . For that purpose, the IOC submitted various documents and also relied upon the various documents produced by the plaintiff and the documents

which were executed and signed for the plaintiff itself . The IOC also submitted that the petrol pump has rightly been advertised and the petrol pump was allotted to the plaintiff only on ad hoc basis, which is apparent from the various documents of