Dismissed

Sumit Pratap Singh v. the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2020WRIC/17494/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of order denying dealership award. Court held petitioner ineligible for Group-1 as land location differed from advertised site. Claim of review was misconceived as draw of lots was provisional subject to eligibility. Petition dismissed for lack of merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition for quashing of the order dated 28.08.2020 was dismissed as it was found devoid of merits.

Sumit Pratap Singh Vs the Bharat Petroleum… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17494 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sumit Pratap Singh Respondent :- The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Asthana,Vijay Kumar Ojha

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- Vikas Budhwar

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

By means of the present petition, the petitioner herein is seeking for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.08.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mathura.

¶7

The order impugned dated 28.08.2020 is under challenge on the ground that after selection of the petitioner for draw of lots, it was not open for the respondent to deny award of dealership at village- Tehra, Tehsil- Attraulli on Panethi, district- Aligarh, pertinent to advertisement dated 25.11.2018.

¶8

Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunita Gupta vs. Union of India & ors. reported in 2014 (2) ARC 392 , it is contended that the decision of respondent no.2 is nothing but a review of decision to select the petitioner for award of dealership.

¶9

It is further contended that the land offered by the petitioner is located in the same village- Tehra.

¶10

We may note that the petitioner was selected provisionally by the draw of lots, pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 for award of Retail Outlet dealership at village- Tehra, TehsilAttraulli on Panethi, district- Aligarh under 'OPEN' category.

¶11

As per the brochure, for selection of Group-1 applicant, it was required that the land offered by him should be located in the advertised location itself.

¶12

From the record it appears that the advertisement was made for location Village- Tehra Teshil- Attraulli, on Panethi Gangiri Road, District- Aligarh, while admittedly, the land offered by the petitioner was located in village Tehra, Tehsil- Koil.

¶13

As, the location of the land-in-question is different from the advertised location, the petitioner could not be selected in Group-1 category in the site inspection done by the Land Evaluation Committee, however, the candidature of the petitioner may be considered for selection in Group-3 category, as per the guidelines.

¶14

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the land offered by him is located in the same village being named as Tehra, does not appeal to us, as it is located in a different Tehsil- Koil.

¶15

As far as, the contention with regard to the review of the decision taken by the respondent no.2, we find the same misconceived, inasmuch as, the selection of the petitioner in the draw of lots was subject to fulfilment of all the eligibility criteria as per the brochure and the spot-inspection made by the Land Evaluation Committee.

¶16

The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 25.11.2020 P Kesari

Sumit Pratap Singh v. the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Pratap Singh v. the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Ballabh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sachin Bansal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Subey Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and Others

Phula Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Krishna Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others