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

2019 Supreme(All) 2745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.K. Narayana and Prakash Padia, JJ.
Nripendra Kumar Dhusia - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17483 of 2017
Decided On: 12-09-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Santosh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Archana Singh, Pramod Kumar Pandey and Manjina Singh

Headnote:

Constitution Of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Draw of lot/bidding process – Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayers issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 3 not give any effect to the draw of lot/bidding process taken place for allotment of Kishan Sewa Kendra Village Retail Out-let dealership at MDR-167 (Chitbaragaon to Ghazipur Road), Block Sohaon, District Ballia only. – Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 3 to get hold inquiry on the complaint/representation submitted by the petitioner personally and take appropriate decision for fresh draw of lot/bidding process only in respect of MDR-167 (Chitbaragaon to Ghazipur Road) Block Sohaon, Tehsil Ballia Sadar, District Ballia – Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 3 not permit to respondent No. 4 for any auction if such draw of lot/bidding of process given in favour of the respondent No. 4 at M.D.R.-167 (Chitbaragaon to Ghazipur Road) Block Sohaon, Tehsil Ballia Sadar, District Ballia. – Held, From perusal of the facts as narrated in the writ petition specially in paragraph 24 of the writ petition in which the petitioner has stated that he has already made a representation before the respondents authorities but from perusal of the supplementary-affidavit filed by him it is clear that no representation was made by the petitioner till the time of the filing of the writ petition. – Statutory representation was submitted by him for the first time copy of which is appended as Annexure 2 to the personal affidavit, which was submitted by him within the statutory period of 30 days but since wrong facts have been stated by the petitioner in the writ petition he is not entitled for any relief specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. – High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. – It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. – If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. – Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. – Writ Petition Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

1. Personal affidavit of the petitioner filed today in the Court is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The office of learned Additional Solicitor General of India has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Ms. Manjina Singh, learned counsel, holding brief of Smt. Archana Singh appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. Notice need not to be issued to respondent No. 4 in view of the order which is proposed to be passed today.

5. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 3 not give any effect to the draw of lot/bidding process taken place on 29.3.2017 for allotment of Kishan Sewa Kendra Village Retail Out-let dealership at MDR-167 (Chitbaragaon to Ghazipur Road), Block Sohaon, District Ballia only.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 3 to get hold inquiry on the complaint/representation dated 30.3.2017 submitted by the petitioner personally and take appropriate decision for fresh draw of lot/bidding process only in respect of MDR-167 (Chitbaragaon to Ghazipur Road) Block Sohaon, Tehsil Ballia Sadar, District Ballia.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 3 not permit to respondent No. 4 for any auction if such draw of lot/bidding of process given in favour of the respondent No. 4 at M.D.R.-167 (Chitbaragaon to Ghazipur Road) Block Sohaon, Tehsil Ballia Sadar, District Ballia."

6. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. published an advertisement on 17.10.2014 for appointment of large number of dealers for opening of Kishan Sewa Kendra Village Retail Out let dealership in the State of U.P. At serial number 145 of the aforesaid advertisement the location was mentioned as MDR-167, (Chitbaragaon to Ghazipur Road) at Firozpur Block Sohaon, Tehsil Ballia Sadar, District Ballia. The location in question is reserved for schedule caste category candidates.

7. For the purpose of establishment of Kishan Sewa Kendra one of the necessary condition was for the applicants to provide land for establishment of the retail outlet. The land proposed to be provided by the applicants are of two types namely Group 1 type (own land) or Group 2 type (firm).

8. The petitioner has applied for the location in question providing land under Group A category. It is contended that all the necessary papers and documents were duly submitted by the petitioner alongwith his application form. It is further contended that after the application form was submitted by the petitioner the respondent. No. 3/Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (MD), Varanasi Divisional Office, District Varanasi issued a letter to the petitioner on 31.7.2016 asking certain more details/documents. It is stated that the informations were duly provided by the petitioner in the office of the respondent No. 3 well within time and all the deficiencies were removed by him.

9. The petitioner received another letter dated 30.12.2016 by which he was directed that the Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) will visit site of land and as such he was requested to be present on the site alongwith photo identity card on 18.1.2017. The Land Evaluation Committee inspected the land offered by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 on 18.1.2017 and submitted its report to the Corporation. It is stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the land offered by the respondent No. 4 was not appropriate for establishment of Kishan Sewa Kendra as such the application submitted by the respondent No. 4 was liable to be rejected. It is further contended that for the location in question only two applicants were found suitable namely petitioner and respondent No. 4 and since th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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