Dismissed

Krishna Kumar Singh v. the state of jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jan 2015WPC/4156/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the allotment of an L.P.G. distributorship to a respondent. The petitioner contested the award based on alleged false land documents and family property disputes, but the court held no legal right or statutory duty was established, deeming it a family dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner awarded nothing; L.P.G. distributorship to respondent no. 9 affirmed; Writ petition dismissed with costs.

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs the state of jharkhand — Consumer Protection | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4156 of 2013

¶3

Krishna Kumar Singh, S/O Late Ayodhya Prasad Singh, R/O Village Khut Kewal Khurd, PO, PS & Dist. Chatra

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, PO, PS & Dist. Chatra

¶8

The Deputy Collector, Land Revenue, Chatra, PO, PS &

¶9

Dist. Chatra

¶10

The Circle Officer, Huntergunj, PO & PS Huntergunj,

¶11

Dist. Chatra

¶12

The Executive Director-L.P.G., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Hindustan Bhawan, 8, SLV Marg, Ballard Estate, PO, PS & Dist. Mumbai, 400001

¶13

The Zonal Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Industry House, 7th Floor, 10-Camac Street, PO, PS & Dist, Kolkata

¶14

The Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Jamshedpur L.P.G. Region, Large Sector, Adityapur Industrial Area, PO, PS Gamharia, Dist. Saraikela, Kharsawan

¶15

The Union of India through Controller of Explosives, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization, East Circle Office, 8, Esplanade East, 1st Floor, PO, PS & Dist. Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069

¶16

Smt. Ragini Rani, W/O Nagendra Kumar Singh, Huntergunj, PO, PS Huntergunj, Dist. Chatra, 825420

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶19

¶20

For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Kumar, Advocate : Mr. M. K. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶21

For the Respondent Nos 2 to 4 : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. For the Respondent Nos 5 to 7 : Mr. Delip Jerath, Advocate

¶22

: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

¶23

05/14.01.2015 Seeking cancellation of distributorship and storage allotted to respondent no. 9 for L.P.G. under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak Yojna, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶24

Briefly stated, pursuant to advertisement dated

¶25

¶26

17.10.2009 published in the local newspapers namely, “Prabhat Khabar” and “Dainik Jagaran” for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Rural L.P.G. distributor for Huntergunj, Chatra, six applications were received and the application of respondent no. 9 was found eligible. Field verification was conducted by the officials of H.P.C.L during which the respondent no. 9 was found fulfilling all common eligibility criteria and accordingly, the RGGLV distributorship was awarded to respondent no. 9 which has been commissioned on 26.05.2013. The petitioner raised objection to the allotment of “RGGVL” distributorship to respondent no. 9 and his son sent a legal notice dated 06.09.2012 seeking cancellation of L.P.G. distributorship awarded to respondent no. 9. It is stated that though an applicant must own clear ownership title of the property, the respondent no.9 submitted false and forged land documents. The respondent no. 9 purchased joint agricultural land from her own husband vide sale deed dated 18.08.2010 and she got her name mutated in the revenue records. On the objection raised by the petitioner, the Circle Officer, Huntergunj made a recommendation to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chatra for cancellation of mutation in the name of respondent no. 9. The petitioner has claimed that no partition of the joint family properties has taken place and the land conveyed to the respondent no. 9 vide sale deed dated 18.08.2010 was mutated in the name of his grand father. 3. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of serious disputed questions of fact being involved in the writ petition. It is stated that the dispute is amongst the family members and in this connection Title Suit No. 35 of 2013 is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-I-cum-Sub Judge-I Chatra in which respondent no. 9 has been arrayed as defendant no. 1. With respect to prayer seeking cancellation of mutation in the name of respondent no. 9, it is stated that the same cannot be granted in the

¶27

¶28

present proceeding and moreover, the issue is pending before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chatra. It is further stated that the petitioner was not an applicant for award of L.P.G. distributorship for Chatra.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, inspite of mandatory provisions contained in the brochure for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Rural L.P.G. distributors, the respondent-H.P.C.L has awarded the L.P.G. distributorship for Huntergunj to the respondent no. 9. The respondent no. 9 does not own and possess clear ownership over the land which she has proposed for construction of L.P.G. cylinder storage godown. It is further submitted that, the joint family property has been fraudulently sold by the husband of respondent no. 9 in her favour and though the Circle Officer made recommendation for cancellation of mutation, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has not taken any action in the matter. On these grounds, cancellation of L.P.G. distributorship to respondent no. 9 has been sought.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-H.P.C.L reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

¶31

I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶32

From the materials brought on record, it appears that there is a family dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 9 which led to filing cases before the Circle Officer, the civil court and this Court. The petitioner has sought cancellation of L.P.G. distributorship awarded to respondent no. 9 on the ground that she does not own clear title over the land which according to the petitioner is a joint family property. It also appears that the respondent no. 9 has submitted a sale deed through which title has been conveyed to respondent no. 9 however, Title Suit No. 35 of

¶33

¶34

2013 has been filed seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 18.08.2010 is null and void. To a pointed querry, how the petitioner is affected by award of L.P.G. distributorship to the respondent no. 9 and what is the injury caused to the petitioner in consequence of allotment to respondent no. 9, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the land belongs to the joint family and thus, the petitioner has been deprived of his right over the joint family property. 8. It is well settled that the writ petitioner must establish a legal right in himself and a corresponding duty in the State. In “Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif & Ors.” reported in AIR 1962 SC 1210 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, “in order that mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to do something it must be shown that the Statutes impose a legal duty and the appellant has a legal right under the Statutes to enforce its performance”. 9. The petitioner has failed to disclose a legal right in him and a corresponding duty in official respondents which they have failed to discharge. The present writ petition is an outcome of family dispute.

¶35

I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶36

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶37

Amit/ N.A.F.R.

Krishna Kumar Singh v. the state of jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Singh v. the state of jharkhand

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

Bhai Gokul Chand Vs Personnel And Adminis Reform

Dinesh Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

MD Muslim Ansari and Ors. Vs Kedar Rai And Ors.

MD Imamuddin Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

MD Karimuddin Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Tata Steel Limited Earlier No Vs Concerned Workman Balkeshwar S