Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AMITABH BANERJEE, K. P. SINGH
VISHNUPURI UPBHOKTA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD - Appellant
Versus
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 945 Of 1985
Decided On : 10/14/1985
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - L. P. G. DISTRIBUTORSHIP - SELECTION - PREFERENCE TO CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND RESIDENT OF THE PLACE - INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONS - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ARBITRARINESS - NATURAL JUSTICE - DISCLOSURE OF REASON FOR NON-SELECTION.
Fact of the Case:
A Co-operative Society challenged the appointment of an individual as the distributor for L. P. G. (Cooking Gas) in Khatauli district Muzaffarnagar by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The Society claimed preference as a Co-operative Society and as a resident of Khatauli, as per the conditions set out in the notice issued by the Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Society was not entitled to preference as it was not among the first four selected by the Board for the grant of distributorship. The Court also held that the Board did not misinterpret the conditions laid down by the Corporation and that the procedure followed by the Corporation was equitable and not arbitrary.
Issues: 1. Whether the Society was entitled to preference as a Co-operative Society and as a resident of Khatauli? 2. Whether the Board misinterpret the conditions laid down by the Corporation? 3. Whether the procedure followed by the Corporation was arbitrary?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Society was not entitled to preference as it was not among the first four selected by the Board for the grant of distributorship. The Court also held that the Board did not misinterpret the conditions laid down by the Corporation and that the procedure followed by the Corporation was equitable and not arbitrary. 2. The Court relied on the decision in Ramana v. I. A. Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, to hold that the State cannot act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise, with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non-discriminatory. 3. The Court also relied on the decision in Bishnu Ram Borah v. Parag Saikia, AIR 1984 SC 898, to hold that failure to give a copy of the report by the Deputy Commissioner, which was of a confidential nature, would not amount to denial of natural justice.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, finding no merits in the petition.
( 2 ) THE writ petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents, who have filed counter affidavits and we have also heard their counsel.
( 3 ) IT will be necessary to state briefly the relevant facts. The petitioner claimed that it was a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The date of registration was 25-1-1974. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement in the Hindi Daily hindustan dt. 20th May, 1983 published from New Delhi inviting applications from persons including registered Co-operative Societies for distributorship of L. P. G. (Liquefied Petroleum Gas ). The petitioner Society submitted an application filing all relevant particulars to the Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division) 19. Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. A notice dated 5th July. 1984 was sent to the petitioner for interview by the Oil Selection Board, New Delhi, respondent 2, hereinafter referred to as the Board. The interview was held on 1-8-1984 at New Delhi. Shri Jai Dev Singh, Secretary of the petitioner Society appeared before the Board. The petitioner thereafter waited for the result of the selection but could not know until the month of December, 1984, that respondent 3 had been allotted the distributorship for L. P. G. The Society thereafter in a meeting dt. 7-1-1985 resolved that the appointment of Shri Sandeep Kumar should be challenged by way of writ petition. The petitioner thereafter filed this petition in this Court on 18-1-1985. The grounds of challenge were two fold: Firstly, the Society was entitled to get preference in the matter of appointment as distributor in view of condition contained in para 4 of the note (Tippani ). This paragraph refers to preference being given to registered Co-operative Societies in the matter of grant of distributorship. The other ground on which emphasis was laid pertained to the residential qualification of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that respondent 3 was not a resident of Khatauli and as such preference ought to have been given to the petitioner who fulfilled that requirement.
( 4 ) THE respondents have taken the stand that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner was not found eligible to be appointed as distributor for L. P. G. The grant of distributorship by the Corporation was a matter of contract and the same could not be challenged in writ jurisdiction. Secondly, the question was one of grant of distributorship based upon selection and there was neither any illegality nor any arbitrariness nor any infringement of the rules of natural justice. Thirdly, the question of preference being given to the petitioner did not arise in the present case, for the primary requisite of granting preference did not exist in favour of the petitioner.
( 5 ) WE have heard Mr, S. N. Misra, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad, Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent Board and Mr. Swami Dayal, Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent 3.
( 6 ) THE contention of Mr.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
