Dismissed

Sunder Singh Son of Late Sh. Badam Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Rajasthan HC28 Aug 2024SAW/1197/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the special appeal challenging the cancellation of the appellant's candidature for an LPG distributorship. The court held that the guidelines defined the 'Location' as the specific area mentioned in the advertisement, and since the appellant lacked land in Village Gidani, the respondents correctly cancelled his application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunder Singh Son of Late Sh. Badam Singh Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:36046-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1197/2022

¶4

Sunder Singh Son Of Late Sh. Badam Singh, Resident Of Village Badi Dhamadi, Post Gram Panchyat Menda Ka Pura, Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (A Government Of India Enterprise) Registered Office 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.

¶8

Jaipur L.p.g. Regional Office, Through Its Senior Regional Manager, Jeevan Nidhi-2, First Floor, L.i.c. Investment Building (Phase-Ii), Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sudesh Kasana For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal with Mr. Sundram Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶12

Order

¶13

28/08/2024

¶14

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2022 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of his candidature for LPG distributorship at village Gidani, District Karauli was dismissed.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant had applied for LPG distributorship at Village Gidani. As the application was for Durgam Kshetriya Vitarak (DKV), appellant was entitled to be considered for LPG distributorship but his

¶16

[2024:RJ-JP:36046-DB]

¶17

[SAW-1197/2022]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

candidature was dismissed on the ground that he was not having any land at village Gidani. It is also contended that the land which the appellant had, was within the distance of 1 km from Village Gidani and as per the Hindi version of the guidelines, appellant who had applied under the category of Durgam Kshetriya Vitarak (DKV) was required to have a land located within 15 kms. from the notified location.

¶20

Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed the appeal. It is contented that the advertisement was specifically for Village Gidani and appellant was not having any land in the said village. It is also contended that the definition of “Location” has been given in the guidelines and as per the definition, anyone who applies for the LPG Distributorship has to have a land in the location mentioned in the advertisement. 4. We have considered the contentions.

¶21

Admittedly, the advertisement was issued for award of LPG Distributorship at different locations, including Village Gidani. The appellant had applied for LPG Distributorship at Village Gidani, however, he is not having any land in the said village. The definition of “Location” in the guidelines reads as under:-

¶22

“Location- In this document, word location means the area identified for setting up of new LPG Distributor. It can be a locality/village/cluster of villages/town or city which is mentioned in the Notice for Appointment of LPG Distributors.”

¶23

One of the locations mentioned in the advertisement was Village Gidani and as per the guidelines, any person who wants to apply should have land within the said village. The appellant was not having any land in the village Gidani and was thus, not

¶24

[2024:RJ-JP:36046-DB]

¶25

[SAW-1197/2022]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

entitled for LPG Distributorship. The respondents have not committed any illegality in cancelling the candidature of the appellant for LPG Distributorship in Village Gidani. We do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to invoke the appellate jurisdiction.

¶28

The present Special Appeal (Writ) being devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶30

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶31

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶32

CHANDAN/MAHIMA/63

Sunder Singh Son of Late Sh. Badam Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunder Singh Son of Late Sh. Badam Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Santosh Devi Sharma Wife of Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma, Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Vyom Foodcraft Private Limited Vs Vyam Food Craft India Private Limited

The State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Usha Sharma Wife of Late Shri Suresh Chand Sharma

M/S Ashwin Auto Cast Private Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rampratap Singh S/O Late Shri Narayan Singh Ji Vs Hari Sharma S/O Late Shri Ramanand Sharma

Inox Leisure Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.