SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ, Harish Kumar, J.
M/s Rita Petrol Pump through its proprietor Gopal Kumar Jha and ors.- Appellants
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and ors. – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.286 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8229 of 2020
Decided On : 29-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Supragya, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, Mr.Sahil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13, Mr. Arya Achint, AC to AAG-13, Mr. Abhinav Alok, AC to AAG-13

IMPORTANT POINT
The dependency clause for dealership allotment is intended to provide support to dependents of deceased government employees, and the timing of birth relative to the parent's death does not disqualify a dependent from receiving benefits.

Headnote:

TERMINATION - DEALERSHIP ALLOTMENT - Bihar Service Code, Rule 184 - The court discussed the dependency clause for dealership allotment, emphasizing that the death of a government employee while on duty allows dependents to apply for benefits. The court interpreted the clause broadly, asserting that the dependency status should not be negated by the timing of birth relative to the parent's death. The court found that the respondent-Corporation acted arbitrarily and vindictively in attempting to cancel the dealership based on unsustainable grounds, leading to the decision to uphold the appellant's allotment.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a dependent of a deceased government employee, was allotted a petrol pump dealership in 2016 based on a dependency certificate. The respondent-Corporation issued multiple show-cause notices attempting to terminate the dealership, citing issues with the dependency certificate and the timing of the appellant's birth relative to the father's death.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent-Corporation's actions were arbitrary and vindictive, lacking a valid basis for terminating the dealership. The dependency certificate was deemed valid, and the timing of the appellant's birth did not negate his status as a dependent.

Issues: Whether the appellant was a valid dependent under the dealership allotment scheme, and whether the respondent-Corporation had the authority to terminate the dealership based on the allegations made in the show-cause notices.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dependency clause should be interpreted to provide benefits to dependents of deceased government employees without strict limitations based on the timing of birth. The actions of the Corporation were found to be arbitrary and unjustified.

Final Decision: The court set aside the termination of the dealership, reinstated the appellant's allotment, and imposed a cost of Rs. One lakh on the respondent-Corporation for their vindictive actions.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ

The appeal impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge which found that the respondent-Corporation passed an order of termination of dealership, over-reaching the orders dated 06.10.2020 and 07.02.2023 passed in the instant writ petition; but however left liberty to the respondent-Corporation to issue a fresh show-cause notice on the same cause of action.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. Nivedita Nirvikar pointed out that the very contentions taken in the writ petition against the two show-cause notices issued were not considered. A fresh show-cause notice if at all issued will be on the same cause of action, which need not be freshly agitated before the Corporation since the Corporation by the repeated show-cause notices has revealed its prejudiced mind to somehow cancel the allotment of a petrol pump to the appellant, which allotment was also in the year 2016 pursuant to an advertisement of the year 2014. As of now the third show cause notice has been issued, produced in this appeal which is on the identical facts and a verbatim reproduction of the earlier notice. The allotment, now sought to be cancelled, was made to the appellant as a dependent of a government servant, based on the death certificate issued by the Principal/Headmaster of the School in which the father of the appellant was employed. At that point, the Corporation had sought for clarification from the Principal of the School regarding the issuance of the certificate as also its genuineness; which were affirmed by the Principal based on which the letter of appointment was granted in the year 2016. The appellant had been successfully carrying on the petrol pump without any complaints when the Corporation published a second advertisement for allotment of retail outlets, against which the petitioner also applied, based on the very same dependency clause.

3. The advertisement of the year 2018 led to an application in which a certificate of the year 2019 was produced from the Principal. At this instance, finding that the date of death of the appellant’s father was a Sunday, the Corporation sought a clarification from the District Education Officer (DEO) as to whether his father was on duty on the said day. The appellant filed an objection with the BPCL and the BPCL constituted a two-men committee to look into two aspects; one as to who is the competent authority to issue a certificate after the death of the government employee and whether the appellant’s father indeed passed away while on duty; as claimed. The DEO communicated to the Committee that the appellant’s father passed away while he was in service, while the Principal of the School issued a letter that the appellant’s father was not on duty, on the date of his death. A further clarification was issued by the DEO indicating that the petitioner’s father did not die while on duty; since 23.09.1984 was a Sunday and the Competent Authority to issue a death certificate is the Registrar of the Gram Panchayat.

4. Based on the above facts, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant produced as Annexure-A4 dated 29.08.2020 against which the petitioner filed the writ petition wherein by order dated 06.10.2020, there were directions issued; to the appellant to reply to the show-cause notice, the respondents to file a counter affidavit and no coercive steps in the meantime. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents and on 21.12.2020, the Director, Primary Education responded to a clarification sought by the BPCL that as per Rule 184 of the Bihar Service Code, even holidays are treated as period of duty. Again on 13.01.2021, this Court raised relevant issues arising in the case as to whether, the death on a Sunday can be treated as death on duty and directed the interim order to continue. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 15.01.2021 and later on 15.01.2022, the show-cause notice was withdrawn.

5. The BPCL again approached the DEO seeking a verificatio

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top