Writ jurisdiction petition challenging non-consideration of candidature for retail outlet allotment. Court held petitioner applied as Group 2 candidate while lottery was only for Group 1, dismissing the writ for lack of merit.
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. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30824 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mahesh Chandra Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Agarval Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vikas Budhwar,Yogendra Kumar
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and perused the record.
By means of this petition under articles 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has raised his grievance regarding non consideration of his candidature for the allotment of retail outlet. He submits that he had applied for the retail outlet by submitting application form on 19.12.2018, i.e., much before the prescribed date. However, he has not been apprised as to what has been the fate of the application/form that he had submitted. He submits that in the draw of lotts, at least his candidature ought to have been considered and he should have been placed in the category of preferences.
On the last occasion we had granted time to Sri Vikas Budhwar learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation to have instructions in the matter regarding the grievance raised by the petitioner. Today, Sri Budhwar placed instructions before the Court which is taken on record.
As per the instructions obtained by Sri Vikas Budhwar, it has been intimated to him that the selection is being made in the category of Group 1 and draw of lotts have taken place only in the preferential way for the purpose of Group 1 category. He has drawn our attention to page-22 of the paper book, annexure-3 to the writ petition in which the applicant has applied for the retail outlet in Group 2 category. In such view of the matter he submits that the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be considered only when the Corporation would not have found any candidate in Group 1 category and since the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered in Group 1 category, there was no question of his candidature being subjected to any draw of lotts in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that petitioner has applied as Group 2 candidate.
In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission advanced learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Shiraz
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's candidature as a Group 2 candidate could have been considered given that the selection process for Group 1 candidates had already concluded via lottery.
Mahesh Chandra
Union Of India
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
