Disposed

Lila Devi v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Patna HC29 Aug 2012CWJC/15397/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging rejection of petroleum dealership application sought directions to Corporation to consider her objection regarding land ownership. Court directed Corporation to decide the objection with urgency.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Corporation to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objection, if not already disposed of, in accordance with law within six weeks.

Lila Devi Vs The Indian Oil Corporation… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15397 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Lila Devi Wife Of Bharat Mahaseth Resident Of Village- Sursand, P.O. & P.S.- Sursand, District- Sitamarhi

¶3

.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 2. S.D.R.S.M., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur 3. Shivani Priya Yadav, daughter of Jai Prakash Rai Resident Of VillageSardalpatti, P.S.- Parihar, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. K.D. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amlesh Kumar Varma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶4

3 29-08-2012 Petitioner and respondent no.3 were only applicants for award of dealership of Petroleum Outlet at the relevant site. Both of them were subjected to interview in which application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she had not produced the original pass-book of the Bank. So far as respondent no.3 is concerned, she was allotted marks under different heads in which she was allotted 93 marks, out of 100 marks, by the Site Inspection Committee.

¶5

Petitioner‘s application having been rejected, she filed her objection on 14.03.2012 before S.D.R.S.M. of the Corporation, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur alleging that plot of the land which was offered by respondent no.3 does not belong to her and she has

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.15397 of 2012 (3) dt.29-08-2012

¶7

2 / 2

¶8

already sold the land piece by piece to different purchasers. After Annexure-2 she applied for a formal report from the Circle Officer and Circle Amin submitted his report dated 12.06.2012 supporting the stand of petitioner enclosing map of the land also which mentions the names of purchasers of piece of land from the said plot. Copy of the report of Amin along with map is Annexure-3.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation has not taken into account the said report of Amin and has not taken any decision on the objection of the petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that once an objection is filed by any candidate before the Corporation in terms of the Brochure, it is obliged to take into consideration the objection and come to a definite finding. He says that in this case if it has not been done, the same will be done.

¶11

In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider and dispose of objection of the petitioner, if not already disposed of, in accordance with law as early as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and communicate the same to her.

¶12

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶13

B.T/-

Lila Devi v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lila Devi v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bhardwaj Construction Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manorma Devi Vs The Central Bank Of India and Ors.

Radhika Kumari Vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Maurya Dhawaz Agrotech and S Vs the United Commercial Bank and O