Dismissed

Mr. Udaysingh S/O Shamsingh Thakur v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through Its Senior Regional Manager, Nagpur

Bombay HC10 Oct 2014WP/282/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of his candidature for L.P.G. distributorship because he submitted title documents in his parents' name, who were not within his 'Family Unit' as per guidelines. The court held the rejection was lawful and cited prior precedent as not applicable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition failed and was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mr. Udaysingh S/O Shamsingh Thakur Vs Hindustan… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/3

¶2

wp282.1 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.282 OF 2014

¶5

Mr. Udaysingh S/o Shamsingh Thakur

¶6

-vs-

¶7

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Shri H.D. Dangre, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.D. Meghe, counsel for the respondent.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P. R. BORA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 10.10.2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication issued by the respondent – H.P.C.L. on 3.1.2014, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for L.P.G. distributorship in Katol.

¶14

As per clauses 6.1 (vii) and (viii) of the guidelines, framed by the Department of Oil and Natural Gas, a person desirous of seeking L.P.G. distributorship was required to own a plot of land of specific dimension for construction of L.P.G. godown and also a plot of land of specific minimum dimensions for the purpose of construction of a showroom. The applicant – candidate was required to either have ownership with the title to the said plot or was required to have a lease deed in respect of the said land for a minimum period of fifteen years in his name. The term ‘Family Unit’ is defined in the guidelines and a married person/applicant shall consist of himself/herself, his or her

¶15

2/3

¶16

wp282.1 4

¶17

spouse and the unmarried sons and daughters. In case of an unmarried person, the ‘Family Unit’ would consist of the applicant, his or her parents and his or her unmarried brothers and sisters. Admittedly, the petitioner – applicant was married and, therefore, the ‘Family Unit’ comprised of himself, his spouse and his unmarried children. The plot of land of which the ownership or lease deed was required to have been owned by a member of the ‘Family Unit’. In the instant case, though the ‘Family Unit’ of the petitioner did not comprise of his father and mother, the petitioner gave the documents of title of his father and mother in respect of the plot in question for construction of the godown and the showroom. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned communication on the ground that the petitioner could not have furnished the documents of title of his parents as his parents did not fall in ‘Family Unit’ of the petitioner. The communication of the respondent is impugned in the instant petition.

¶18

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it cannot be said that the action on the part of the H.P.C.L. in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner was illegal or irrational. The petitioner ought to have furnished the documents of title of the members of his ‘Family Unit’, which did not include his parents. The petitioner ought to have either furnished the documents of title and ownership of the members of his ‘Family Unit’ or a lease deed for a period of fifteen years in his name. Since both the things were not done, the respondent – H.P.C.L. rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner. We do not find any fault in the

¶19

3/3

¶20

wp282.1 4

¶21

action of the respondent in declining to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent – H.P.C.L. ought to have invoked clause 8.5 of the guidelines of the year 2013 is not well founded and is liable to be rejected. The same could have been invoked by the respondent – H.P.C.L. only where there was any minor technical defect in the application of the petitioner. Such is not the case here. If clause 8.5. of the guidelines of the year 2013 is permitted to be invoked in cases like the present one, every applicant whose candidature is rejected on the ground that the documents of title are not in accordance with the guidelines, would approach the H.P.C.L. at a subsequent stage with a request that he / she may be permitted to tender some new documents of ownership. The judgment reported in (2013)10 SCC Page-95 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.

¶22

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

BRW

Mr. Udaysingh S/O Shamsingh Thakur v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through Its Senior Regional Manager, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Udaysingh S/O Shamsingh Thakur v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through Its Senior Regional Manager, Nagpur

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

Ashok S/O Sowardhan Sahare Vs Director/Marketing Shri N.N. Chintamani, Mumbai Gruh Nirman and Area Dev. Board and 2 Ors.

Sau. Madhuri W/O Dilip Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Mumbai and 3 O

Sau. Anita W/O Kirat @ Kiran Kshirsagar Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Women and Child Development Department and 3 Others

Smt. Ushadevi W/O Ashok Shrawagi and 2 Others Vs Collector, Amravati and 5 Others

Asaram S/O Bhagaji Gite and Others Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resourc Developmnet, New Delhi and 3 Other

Vijay Bhimrao Neware and 13 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Department, Mumbai and 3 Others