In a Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court of Patna allowed the appeal filed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., setting aside a single judge order that directed the Corporation to process an incomplete application for an LPG distributorship.
Impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside; CWJC No. 14205 of 2010 is rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.51 of 2012 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14205 of 2010
======================================================
.... .... Appellants/Respondents in the writ
Versus
Smt. Sandhya Prasad, W/O Shri Rajiv Kumar, resident of Mohiuddin Nagar, P.S.- Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur
.... .... Respondent/Petitioner in the writ
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha
Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 27th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 14205 of 2010.
6 24-07-2012
The matter at issue is the grant of distributorship of L.P.G. cylinders by the appellant Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) in the town of Samastipur. Admittedly, the respondent did not sign the
Patna High Court LPA No.51 of 2012 (6) dt.24-07-2012
2 / 3
undertaking which was part of the application form. In view of the incomplete application made by the respondent, her application was rejected. The said action of the Corporation was challenged by the respondent in above CWJC No. 14205 of 2010. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the premise that although the petitioner had not signed the undertaking, she had put her signature on the said page of the application form. It was a sheer inadvertence that she did not sign the undertaking for that she cannot be penalised.
Feeling aggrieved, the Corporation has preferred this
Appeal.
We have perused copy of the application made by the writ petitioner. It is evident that the applicant was required to sign at the bottom of every page of the application. The applicant was also required to give an undertaking in terms of paragraph-17. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to sign the application and also the undertaking in the prescribed form. In absence of her signature and the undertaking required to be given by the petitioner, in our opinion, the Corporation had rightly rejected her application as incomplete. The Court cannot presume that the petitioner had omitted to sign the application inadvertently or unintentionally.
The Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot go into the question of presence or absence of malice of malafides. Once the application was incomplete, the Corporation was justified in rejecting the said application without entering into the reasons for such omission or incomplete application. The Court exercising power of judicial review would not interfere in such administrative matters. The learned single Judge has committed an error in issuing the
Patna High Court LPA No.51 of 2012 (6) dt.24-07-2012
3 / 3
direction to the Corporation to consider the incomplete application made by the petitioner and to process the same. For the aforesaid reason, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 14205 of 2010 is set aside. CWJC No. 14205 of 2010 is rejected.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Sujit/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants were justified in rejecting an incomplete application for LPG distributorship.
Whether the High Court should intervene under Article 226 regarding an incomplete application and resultant rejection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the ConstitutionReferred¶30
M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Smt. Sandhya Prasad
R.M. Doshit
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
