Petitioner challenged rejection for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak appointment on grounds of non-compliant land. Court found petitioner re-offered unacceptable land despite opportunity. Dismissed petition as no interference warranted on subjective satisfaction.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.10469 of 2012
Date of decision : 29.5.2012
Sunder Lal
....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order AnnexureP-8 by which his candidature for appointment of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak in the State of Haryana was rejected on the ground that the land which he had offered was not upto the specifications and requirements indicated in the desired guidelines of the company. The petitioner was made aware of the limitations of the site which he had offered and was given an option to satisfy the requirements but he offered very same land once again. Finding that the land was not upto the specifications, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled and he was ousted from the process of consideration. This being the grievance the instant petition has been filed impugning the order on the ground that the land was perfectly in accordance with the specifications prescribed and thus the rejection is improper.
On due consideration of the matter and upon perusal of
C.W.P.No.10469 of 2012 -2-
the impugned order it indicates that the respondents were dissatisfied with the land which the petitioner had offered. He was given an opportunity to bring the land upto the specifications desired by the Corporation but the petitioner merely offered the same land once again. In this view of the matter, when the requirement of the land and its suitability being the subjective satisfaction of the Corporation, the Court cannot interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to impose its opinion upon the Corporation more so when this Court is not possessed of the requisite knowledge regarding the suitability of the land for the purpose that it has been desired.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed. 29.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
dss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can interfere when the rejection of candidature was based on subjective satisfaction regarding land suitability.
Whether the petitioner proved that the offered land was in accordance with specifications despite being given a chance to correct deficiencies.
Sunder Lal
Union of India
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
