Dismissed

Kishor Kumar Verma v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC16 Jan 2025WPC/2587/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged LPG dealership allotment to Respondent No. 4 alleging forgery of a domicile certificate. Court dismissed the writ petition citing procedural lapses in challenging the original order and insufficient evidence to prove forgery, noting the dealership had operated for over 10 years.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Kishor Kumar Verma Vs Hindustan Petroleum… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:3074

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2587 of 2014

¶7

Kishor Kumar Verma, S/o Late Shri Yashwant Verma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Post Suhela Tahsil Simga, Civil and Revenue District Balodabazar – Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Through Its Senior Regional Manager, Raipur Lpg Regional office, LPG Bottling Plant, Post And P.S. Mandir Hasaud Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2- The State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Civil And Revenue DistrictBalodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3- Tahsildar Sub - Tahsil Suhela, Block And Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapra, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4- Sandeep Verma S/o Khemlal Verma Aged About 21 Years Occupation Studying In B.E. at Bhilai Permanent Resident Teachers Colony, Near Khubchand Baghel Chowk Gram Panchayat - Tandwa Baikunth Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

17.01.2025

-2-

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.I The petitioner prays for the following relief's against the respondents:-This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions to respondent Corporation (respondent no.1), to consider the application of the petitioner, as the first eligible candidate for the dealership under RGGLV Scheme for the location of village Suhela.

¶21

II. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1, the corporation to cancel the allotment of dealership of the respondent no.4, which was obtained by them by using a false and fabricated residential certificate of the location of village Suhela.

¶22

III. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondents for taking actions against the responsible persons for issuance and using of false and fabricated Certificate of resident of village Suhela to favour the respondent no.4, in the process of allotment of the dealership under RGGLV Scheme, illegally and violated rules of law.

¶23

IV. Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court, may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with the cost of the petition, may also be granted to the petitioner. ”

¶24

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit as under:-

¶25

A. An advertisement was issued by respondent No.1 for the award of dealership

¶26

under the OBC category at village Suhela under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) on 18.09.2013.

¶27

B. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 submitted their application forms

¶28

along with other relevant documents; respondent No.1 scrutinized the applications and enclosed documents submitted by the eligible candidates. On 21.01.2014, the petitioner was declared eligible to participate in the draw of the

¶29

-3-

¶30

lot. On 12.02.2014, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Suhela issued a certificate with regard to the residence of respondent No.4.

¶31

C. Respondent No.1 was also invited to participate in the draw of the lot by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 26.05.2014. The petitioner raised an objection with regard to the domicile certificate issued by the Sarpanch in favour of respondent No.4 vide representation dated 21.07.2014.

¶32

D. It was stated that respondent No. 4 had submitted a forged residential certificate. A complaint was also made before respondent No.2. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.1 on 11.11.2014, and therefore, the petitioner made a complaint before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhatapara on 17.11.2014.

¶33

1. A Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent No. 4 on 20.09.2014. Annexure P/7 is a standard resident certificate issued by the Tehsildar – Suhela in favour of respondent No.4.

¶34

1. In the year 2014, Tehsil Suhela was not in existence as Supela was notified as Tehsil in March, 2022; thus, the domicile certificate submitted by respondent No.4 was forged.

¶35

1. Respondent No. 4 afterwards obtained a domicile certificate from the revenue authorities and placed it on record; thus, he would submit that the instant petition may be allowed and the Letter of Intent granted to respondent No. 4 may be cancelled and respondent No.1 may be directed to issue a Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner.

¶36

-4-

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Choubey and submit that the certificate Annexure-P/7 was issued by the Tehsildar, Suhela on 16.01.2016, but this document was not placed by respondent No.4 along with the application form. They would contend that a domicile certificate was issued in favour of respondent No. 4 by the Tehsildar Suhela on 15.10.2013 in case No.3/B121/2013-14. They would further contend that the domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent No.4 is still in existence and the same has not been cancelled, altered or modified by any of the superior authorities. They would further argue that the representations made by the petitioner were rejected, the Letter of Intent issued in favour of respondent No.4 was issued on 20.09.2014 and that order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 is running LPG dealership without any obstacle; thus, no case is made out for interference.

¶38

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶39

1. In the present case, a Letter of Intent has already been issued in favour of respondent No.4 on 20.09.2014 by respondent No.1 and that order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition and it is the first lacuna in the present writ petition.

¶40

1. Further, the petitioner has not annexed a copy of the application form along

¶41

with the documents submitted by respondent No. 4 in the present writ petition to demonstrate that Ex.P/7-domicile certificate was placed by respondent No.4

¶42

-5-

¶43

along with her application, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the very certificate was submitted by respondent No. 4 along with the application form, whereas, Annexure R-4/1 domicile certificate was issued on 15.10.2013 and this is a second lacuna in the case of the petitioner. Further, respondent No.4 has been running the LPG dealership since 2014 and after a long 10 years, it would not be appropriate to cancel the dealership only on the ground that the domicile certificate which was produced by respondent No. 4 was forged, whereas, the same has not been proved.

¶44

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby

¶45

dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶48

Nadim

Kishor Kumar Verma v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Kumar Verma v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Grihum Housing Finance Limited Vs G. Krishna Muti

Juthan Ram Rajwade Vs Jamuna Prasad Rajwade

Sanjay Kumar Das Vs Meena Das

Triloki Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Swati Vandana Sisodiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Pandey Vs Jagnu Kaiwarta