In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a 2018 advertisement for retail dealership, holding he had no legal right to object to the fresh bid given his pending 2006 application.
Writ petition dismissed; no interference with the advertisement dated 25.11.2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2886 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ajay Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Archana Singh,Yogendra Kumar
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 whereby the respondent no. 2 has invited applications for Dealership of Retail Outlet.
The grievance of the petitioner is that previously the respondent no. 2 has issued an advertisement in the year 2006 inviting applications for Dealership of Retail Outlet. In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioner has made an application on 28.7.2006 and he was called for interview before the Dealer Selection Committee on 15.11.2007. The petitioner has moved a representation on 8.5.2008 that he had appeared before the Selection Committee but the result was not communicated to him. He moved a representation wherein he has stated that the authority concerned should furnish reason why the petitioner has not been selected. It is stated that in the meantime the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. On 27.3.2014 he was granted bail. Now the petitioner has challenged the fresh advertisement.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for Indian Oil Corporation and the learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the advertisement which was made in the year 2006, his name was
not included in the select list for grant of Dealership of Retail Outlet. The petitioner, without any justifiable reason, is now challenging the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 on the ground that his earlier application remains pending and he was in jail.
We are of the view that the petitioner has no legal right to challenge the fresh advertisement. It is open to him to make an application in pursuance of the said advertisement, if he fulfills the eligibility criteria. We are also not satisfied with the explanation submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner for challenging the said advertisement on the ground that he was in jail.
In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.3.2019 Digamber
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge a fresh advertisement for dealership after an earlier application from 2006 remained pending.
Whether the petitioner's incarceration bars his right to challenge the eligibility criteria of the new advertisement.
Ajay Yadav
Union Of India
Indian Oil Corporation
Respondent No. 4
Respondent No. 5
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
