Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Md Abu Nasar Ansari - Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 944 of 2013
Decided On : 06-12-2019
Sachi Nandan Das, Advocate
Candidates must fulfill the specified requirements without any interpretation or relaxation, as doing so would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Ownership - Liquid Petroleum Gas Distribution - Condition No. ¼t½, Condition No.13 - The court discussed the eligibility criteria and conditions for allotment of distributorship of Liquid Petroleum Gas under the RGGLV. It highlighted the requirement for clear and absolute title over the land, the need for consent of other family members if the property has different title holders, and the provision for inspection of the site and documents before issuance of Letter of Intent. The court emphasized that candidates are required to fulfill the specified requirements without any interpretation or relaxation, as doing so would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for distributorship of Liquid Petroleum Gas under the RGGLV. His application was rejected due to non-fulfillment of the condition related to ownership of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection was based on non-fulfillment of the conditions and incomplete application form, and not on any jurisdictional error or contrary to statutory provisions.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's application for distributorship due to the incorrect disclosure of land ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that candidates must fulfill the specified requirements without any interpretation or relaxation, as doing so would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as it was not a fit case to issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the decision of the authority.
JUDGMENT
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 07.01.2013 issued by the Chief Area Manager, Ranchi Area Office of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited has been assailed by which the application of the petitioner for award of distribution of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) under Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distribution Scheme (hereinafter to be referred to as RGGLV) has been found to be not fit for issuance of Letter of Intent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the advertisement as contained under Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the petitioner has made application for consideration of distributorship.
3. According to the petitioner, he being eligible on several accounts, has made application and the application having been found to be in order in all respect, he was called upon on 02.08.2012 for the draw for selection amongst the qualified applicants for RGGLV at Hiranpur (Serial N.70) to the said advertisement. The petitioner has been selected in the said draw on 24.08.2012 which has been communicated by the competent authority of the respondent for issuance of Letter of Intent. The land of the petitioner was also inspected by the authorized officer who has submitted a report on 31.10.2012 finding the land of the petitioner suitable for the godown and office of the gas agency to be opened at the Hiranpur village. The Letter of Intent has been issued with respect to other applicants but when the same has not been issued in favour of the petitioner, he had contacted with the respondent authorities. Subsequently, he has received a communication dated 14.01.2013 informing him about the rejection of is candidature on the ground that the land is in the name of his grandfather who is outside family unit and therefore, has found not fit for issuance of Letter of Intent.
4. According to the petitioner, the land in question although originally in the name of the grandfather but his father being the only son, inherited the landed property in question as also he being the only son of his father, has become absolute owner of the landed property and, therefore, the petitioner has got absolute right over the landed property. The respondent authority ought to have considered this aspect of the matter but without considering the same the decision has been taken by rejecting the candidature on the ground of non-fulfilment of the condition as provided under Condition No. (t) of the advertisement as contained under Annexure-1, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
6. None is present to press that counter affidavit but after going across the same, it transpires therefrom that the stand taken inter alia therein that the petitioner was selected by draw but in its scrutiny it has been found that the petitioner has mentioned that the land for establishing the godown and showroom is in the name of his father but later on, on field verification it was found that the petitioner had misrepresented the fact that the land was not in the name of his father, rather, it was in the name of his grandfather who has died much before. The respondent authorities, on that ground, has rejected the candidature of the petitioner by holding about non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions, therefore, there is no illegality in the decision taken by the authority.
7. Rejoinder has been filed to said counter affidavit disputing the stand taken by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the counter affidavit.
8. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone across the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner as also Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, has found therefrom some undisputed fact which is being enumerated herein below :-
(i) The oil company has come out with an advertisement as contained under Annexure-1 inviting applications for allotmen
