IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Binod Kumar Mishra, S/o. Sri Kamla Kant Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's relief sought through writ. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court analyzes previous decisions and positions. (Para 3 , 9 , 14) |
| 3. allegations against respondent regarding pending criminal case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding eligibility for dealership. (Para 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 5. criminal case status concerning eligibility. (Para 10 , 19) |
| 6. royal court findings precedent for this case. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. court finds no irregularity in respondent's selection. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. writ petition dismissed. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ petition for the following reliefs:
I) Issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing apart of the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by respondent no. 7 by which it is observed that the statement made by respondent no.10 in affidavit at Para 7 is not contrary to the facts.
ii.) Issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as dealer after cancelling the dealership of respondent no.10 because petitioner position in select list was in 2nd position and against petitioner no criminal case is pending nor any adverse remarks
Ramchandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors.,
Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar & Ors.,
Ramesh Chandra Sankla & Ors. Vs. Vikram Cement & Ors.,
ABL International Ltd. & anr Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Lts. & Ors.,
Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner,
Kunwar Pal Singh (dead) by LRS. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
Munna Kumar Prasad Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Kaushal Kishore Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Brajesh Chandra Mishra Vs. The Union of India & Ors.,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Jha & Ors.,
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors.,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr Vs. Dolly Das,
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
Pending criminal charges do not disqualify candidates for dealership, especially for juveniles, unless formal charges are framed, emphasizing the protection of juvenile rights in selection processes.
Mere pendency of criminal case without framed charges does not disqualify under dealership advertisement Clause 4; advertisement prevails over application form; delay, investments bar relief; new ple....
A candidate must meet all eligibility criteria to have standing in challenging an administrative decision; mere dissatisfaction does not confer legal rights.
The candidature in a selection process cannot be rejected based on developments occurring after the application submission deadline, reinforcing adherence to initial terms outlined by the governing g....
Misrepresentation in application for dealership leads to cancellation of allotment, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in public sector dealings.
The specific eligibility criteria in a tender or advertisement must be strictly complied with, and the terms of the advertisement or brochure must be given meaning and necessary significance.
Point of Law : Applications for selection of regular LPG distributorships were invited in April, 2011 by BPCL. One of the eligibility criteria was that the applicant should own a plot of land of adeq....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.