Writ petition challenging the award of an LPG distributorship to respondent no. 4 based on alleged lack of suitable land by that respondent was dismissed as no statutory violation or breach of advertisement terms was proved.
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 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15711 of 2010
====================================================== Gayanti Kumari, W/O Shri Bhim Singh, R/O Vill. + P.S.- Barun, Distt.Aurangabad (Bihar)
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 1st Floor, Shashi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna through its General Manager 2. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 1st Floor, Shashi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 3. The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna 4. Shri Mirtunjay Kumar Pandey, S/O Banshidhar Pandey, R/O Vill.Barun, P.S.- Barun, Distt.- Aurangabad (Bihar) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh For the Respondent nos.1to3: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr.Amlesh Verma Mr.Ankit Katriar For the Respondent no.4 : Mr.Brij Bhari Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER
4 24-04-2015 Heard the parties.
The matter at issue is the award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Distributorship (RGGLV) at location Barun in the district of Aurangabad by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation on the basis of the advertisement dated 17.10.2009, part of which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the selection of the respondent no.4 for award of the aforesaid distributorship at the location in question.
The only ground taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to assail the selection of the respondent no.4 is that he was having no suitable lands at the location in question.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation, by referring to the advertisement dated 17.10.2009 and the corrigendum brought thereafter, submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.15711 of 2010 (4) dt.24-04-2015
2
the last date for submission of application form by the eligible candidate was 27.11.2009. By referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 as also supplementary counter affidavit filed on their behalf, it is submitted that the respondent no.4 was having suitable lands at the location in question for award of the LPG distributorship. In support of the above contentions, he has placed reliance on the affidavits sworn by the father of the respondent no.4 on 25.11.2009 which was before the last date for submission of the application form. It is also pointed out that the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding non-offering of suitable land by the respondent no.4 was investigated by the Field Investigation Report Committee and after such investigation the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by the order/communication dated 04.11.2010 (Annexue-R/9 annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit).
Though, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued the matter at great length, but he has not been able to point out violation of any statutory provisions or violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement or the brochure issued by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation.
In the aforesaid factual matrix, I am afraid the relief sought for on behalf of the petitioner cannot be granted to the petitioner particularly in the background that the LPG distributorship was commissioned way back on 29.03.2011.
In the result, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Arvind/U
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding the lack of suitable land for the respondent to secure an LPG distributorship warrants setting aside the selection.
Gayanti Kumari
The Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Shri Mirtunjay Kumar Pandey
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
