MAHEMMAD HABEEB SHAMS ANSARI
SUKANTA MUKHERJEE – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
( 1 ) BY an order dated 10. 2. 98 of His Lordship the Chief Justice, the matter has been assigned to this Court.
( 2 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ application has questioned the advertisement dated 19. 12. 97 published by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation (for short IOC) for grant of dealership of retail outlet at Bidhannagar. The said retail outlet was reserved for woman. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the impugned reservation in terms of the said advertisement is in violation of Article 14, 15 (1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also direction is sought for restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned reservation in terms of the said advertisement.
( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the said reservation, he is not entitled to make an application for grant of dealership in response to the said advertisement though he is otherwise qualified for making such application.
( 4 ) WHEN the writ application was moved, S. K. Sen, J. , passed an ad-interim order dated 27. 1. 98 to the effect that the concerned respondent will be at liberty to proceed with the applications that may be received pursuan
REFERRED TO : Naba Kumar Roy v. Union of India and Ors.
Union of India and Ors. v. K.P. Prabhakaran
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijoya Kumar and Anr.
Controller and Auditor General of India v. Mohanlal Mehrotra
Madhya Pradesh Oil Extraction and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
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.