Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPMS/ 3610/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Gaurav Pawar, Advocate holding brief

of Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the

petitioners.

Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted

by Mr. Kanti Ram, Advocate for the respondent. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners

have sought the following reliefs:

1. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of

mandamus, commanding the Respondent to refund the sum of ₹25,68,399/-(Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh Sixty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-Nine Only) to the

Petitioner forthwith along with applicable interest.

2. Issue a writ, order, or direction commanding the

Respondents to take all necessary steps to ensure that the benefits due to the Petitioner No. 1, being an allottee under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, are not denied or

withheld.”

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner’s partner Mr. Vivek Kumar had deposited Rs. 25,68,399/- with Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority (HRDA) for sanction of layout for the petrol

pump and said amount is liable to be refunded.

4. Pleading in this writ petition is made in

para 8 of the writ petition, which is as follows:

“8- That pursuant to such allotment, and in

compliance with the requirements of both IOCL and the Haridwar-Roorkee Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "HRDA"), Mr. Vivek Kumar duly submitted the layout plan on behalf of the retail outlet as provided and prescribed by IOCL, and in further compliance the Petitioner No. 2 deposited a sum of ₹25,68,399/- (Rupees Twenty- Five Lakh Sixty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-

Nine Only) with the HRDA in his own individual capacity.”

5. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Indian Oil Corporation Limited has drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2628 of 2025 (MS), which is on record at page 33 of the writ petition.

6. He submits that, earlier petitioner had sought a direction to HRDA to refund the amount to petitioner. He submits that HDRA has refused to refund the amount by holding that the fee deposited for sanction of building plan cannot be refunded.

7. Mr. V.K. Kohli further submits that from the own showing of petitioner, the amount was deposited by Mr. Vivek Kumar and not by petitioner and the application for sanction of building plan was also submitted by Mr. Vivek Kumar.

8. He submits that Indian Oil Corporation Limited has nothing to do with the matter and whatever amount has been deposited has been deposited with the Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority.

9. This Court finds substance in the statement made by learned Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel.

10. The amount deposited by petitioner or Mr. Vivek Kumar with HDRA, cannot be recovered from IOCL, moreover, the amount was