Dismissed

Smt Rambharoshi Devi v. Chariman Hindustan Petro Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2015CW/712/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of her application for a petrol diesel dealership due to zero marks allotted for Fixed & Movable Assets because she submitted a Tehsildar certificate instead of the mandated government-approved valuer report. The court found the Corporation acted in accord with guidelines and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and all pending applications including stay applications are dismissed.

Smt Rambharoshi Devi Vs Chariman Hindustan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.712/ 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.712/ 2013

¶5

Smt. Rambharosi Devi-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Chairman, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.Respondents

¶8

Date of Order-: : -6^th August 2015

¶9

Hon ' ble Ms. Ju st ice Bela M. Tr ivedi

¶10

Mr. Deepak Sharma, for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Pratyush Raj for Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Madhav Mitra, for respondent No.3.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

By t h e Cou r t :-

¶14

1 . The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking

¶15

direction to quash and set aside the order dated 17.12.2012 (Anneuxre-6) passed by the respondent No.2 and further sought direction against the respondent Corporation to award dealership of Petrol/ Diesel Outlet as per the advertisement, at location S.No.272 within 3 kilometer from Chhatarpura School towards Nainva on Uniyara-Nainwa Road District Tonk.

¶16

2 . It appears that the petitioner had applied for the selection of petrol diesel retail outlet dealership in the respondent Corporation, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation. According to the petitioner, she had submitted the requisite documents alongwith the application form as per the guidelines issued by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was also called for the interview by the Selection Committee on 20.08.2012, however the petitioner was allotted

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.712/ 2013

¶18

¶19

only 79.83 marks out of 100 marks whereas the respondent No.3 was allotted 83.52 out of 100 marks. According to the petitioner, she was allotted zero marks under the sub-category of Fixed & Movable Assets in the category of “Capability to arrange finance”, though the petitioner had annexed the necessary documents alongwith the application, and more particularly the capability certificate issued by the Tehsildar. The said action of the respondent Corporation was earlier challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition being No.14707/ 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of vide the order dated 19.11.2012, directing the respondents to examine the issue raised by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 vide the impugned order dated 17.12.2012, rejected the representation of the petitioner and hence this petition is filed. The petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing their respective replies.

¶20

3 . It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Deepak Sharma for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted the certificate of the Tehsildar Uniyara to show her capability to arrange finance, as per the guidelines of the respondent Corporation, however the corporation has arbitrarily not considered the said certificate and allotted zero marks in the sub-head “Fixed & Movable Assets”. He also submitted that the corporation had not given list of government approved valuers, and therefore the valuation made by the Tehsildar was required to be considered as the correct valuation for the assets of the

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.712/ 2013

¶22

¶23

petitioner.

¶24

4 . However, the learned counsels for the respondents have drawn the attention of the Court to the brochure containing the guidelines for the selection of the petrol-diesel retail outlet dealers, and submitted that the petitioner having not submitted the valuation report duly certified by the government approved valuer in support of her assets, the petitioner rightly was given zero out of 4 marks.

¶25

5 . Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner has been allotted zero marks for the sub-head “Fixed & Movable Assets”, under the parameter of capability to arrange finance, as the petitioner had failed to submit the valuation report duly certified by the government approved valuer. It is not disputed that the petitioner had produced the capability certificate of the Tehsildar and not of government approved valuer for the purpose of evaluating her fixed and movable assets, though as per Clause-16 of the guidelines issued by the respondent corporation, she was required to submit the valuation report by the Govt. approved

¶26

valuer. The respondent No.2 has rightly considered the representation made by the petitioner and held that the petitioner having failed to submit requisite documents namely the report of government approved valuer, she was allotted zero out of 4 marks. The Court therefore does not find any substance in

¶27

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.712/ 2013

¶28

¶29

the present petition. The petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. By this order, the stay application and other pending application if any, also stand dismissed.

¶30

( Bela M. Tr ivedi) J.

¶31

R.Vaishnav 233. "All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed." Ramesh Vaishnav Personal Assistant

Smt Rambharoshi Devi v. Chariman Hindustan Petro Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rambharoshi Devi v. Chariman Hindustan Petro 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

Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bhanwer Lal Vs State

Pyarey Lal Silaic Advocate Vs State

Mangilal Jangir Vs Mrs Dr Malvika Panwar and Others

Manish Sharma@Dolya Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ritu Samriya and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.