IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction )

C.W.J.C. No. 3536/2015
Binod Kumar

Petitioner
Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors.

Respondents

Rejoinder on behalf of Petitioner to counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No 3 & 4

1. I Binod Kumar, aged about 66 years, son of Late Rameshwar Nath Gupta, Resident of
Sheohar, P.S.- Sheohar, District Sheohar do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
follows:
2. That I am the petitioner in this case and I am well aware about the facts and
circumstances of this case.
3. That instead of giving para wise reply of the counter affidavit, the petitioner craves leave
of the court to file consolidated rejoinder/reply to the counter affidavit reserving right to
give para wise reply as and when required by this court.
4. That it is stated at the outset that the respondents have tried to keep certain facts from this
court, which are necessary for proper adjudication of the case. And hence are brought
herein.
5. That the Respondent authorities terminated the dealership on the ground that key was
only available to Petitioner; hence no other person could have taken the oil without his
help. But this allegation is belied by the findings of investigation report, wherein it has
concluded that it is not possible to pinpoint involvement of dealer or transporter in the
conspiracy.

6. That further on many occasions it was found and later on verified that each time there
was shortage of 100 to 200 liter of Kerosene Oil in spite of there being no key with the
transporter. The said fact was noted on the acknowledgement copy of the invoice and
which was submitted by the transporter to Depot manager IOC and which at no point of
time was ever objected by IOC.
Copy of Receipts issued by Indian oil
Corporation
30.12.2006,

limited

dated

14.08.2008,

11.09.2006,
14.08.2008,

14.08.2008; 16.09.2008, 11.10.2006 and

13.03.2007 are

annexed

herewith and

marked as Annexure 11 Series to this

rejoinder application.
7. That the investigation report dated 14.05.2010 has further found that the Signature of the
Dealer was not matching on the acknowledgement copy of invoices submitted by the
transporters to supply point.
8. That it is submitted that absence of any inspection report by the marketing officer of IOC
for the two consignment dated 22.02.2010 and 24.02.2010 further certifies the contention
of the petitioner that the said two consignments of 88 KL had not been received by the
petitioner. it is stated that as per the standing operating procedure, each tankllories before
being decanted at the fuel station of dealer, has to be inspected and certified by the
marketing officer of the IOC and shortage to be recorded by him. Absence of the report in
the present case is a proof of non receipt.
9. That it is submitted that the reply field by petitioner dated 01.10.2010 was not given
consideration and was rejected without proper application of mind to the facts stated in

the reply in most perfunctory manner. It is also apparent from the bare reading of the
termination letter issued on 08.07.2011, that the same is based on an opinion of a third
party.
10. That the petitioner made repeated request to send the details V.T.S. to ascertain the
movement of the tanklories which was loaded with K. Oil which was available with
respondent authorities, so as to prove his case but same was intentionally denied to the
Petitioner. it is further submitted that, once the said issue had been raised by the petitioner
in his show cause reply, the SDRSM was under obligation to have given its finding on the
same for that was the only conclusive and clinching evidence to establish the guilt of the
petitioner for all others findings are mere based on mere surmises and are no sequiter
with regard to the guilt of petitioner.
11. That the Respondent authorities were required to consider the representation of petitioner
afresh in accordance with law but simply relied on their earlier termination order dated
08.07.2011 without any effort and refused to restore the license of Petitioner.
12. That it is respectfully submitted that mere surmises and conjectures cannot be a substitute
for hard evidence.
13. I have gone through the rejoinder and explained to me hindi and understood the same.
14. That the statements made in the paragraph .. are true to my knowledge
and those made in paragraph..are derived from the records of the case
and the rest are by way of submissions before this Honble Court.
15. That the annexure (s) are photocopy of the respective originals.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction )
C.W.J.C. No. 3536/2015
Binod Kumar

Petitioner
Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors.

Respondents

REJOINDER TO THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

INDEX

Sl.No.
1.
2. Annexure -11-

Particulars
Rejoinder to Counter Affidavit
Copy of Receipts issued by
Indian oil Corporation limited

Page Nos.
14