Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 700
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Smt. Devika Shukla - Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17111 of 2014
Decided on : 23-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Manikant Sharma, Advocate Counsel
For the Respondent:Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Ritwik Parashar, Advocate, Ajay Oza, Advocate, R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri Aishwarya Singh Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the 'Family Unit' provision in the guidelines for selection of Regular L.P.G Distributorship, and its impact on the entitlement of individuals for distributorship under the reserved category.
Headnote:
Compensatory Benefit - L.P.G Distributorships - Clause 6.1(v) and 6.2.2 (a) II - The court discussed the provisions contained in clause 6.1(v) and 6.2.2 (a) II of Policy Guidelines, and their interpretation in the context of the reservation of L.P.G distributorships for various categories. The court emphasized that the provisions are to be read together and concluded that a person claiming the distributorship under the reserved category will not be entitled for consideration unless forming part of a 'Family Unit'. The court highlighted the principle that if one dependent has availed the benefit under the Reservation clause, other dependents will not be entitled for distributorship under the reservation quota. The court set aside the allotment of L.P.G distributorship in favor of a respondent and directed re-advertisement of the location under the Reserved Category.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the non-grant of L.P.G distributorship to the petitioner under the open (GP) category. The controversy arose from the interpretation of the expression 'Family Unit' in the guidelines for selection of Regular L.P.G Distributorship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interpretation of the 'Family Unit' provision led to the misutilization of the Compensatory Benefit reserved for various categories for setting up L.P.G distributorships. The court set aside the allotment of L.P.G distributorship in favor of a respondent and directed re-advertisement of the location under the Reserved Category.
Issues: The issues involved the arbitrary interpretation of the expression 'Family Unit' in the guidelines for selection of Regular L.P.G Distributorship, and the misutilization of the Compensatory Benefit reserved for various categories.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the provisions contained in clause 6.1(v) and 6.2.2 (a) II of Policy Guidelines are to be read together and concluded that a person claiming the distributorship under the reserved category will not be entitled for consideration unless forming part of a 'Family Unit'. The court highlighted the principle that if one dependent has availed the benefit under the Reservation clause, other dependents will not be entitled for distributorship under the reservation quota.
Final Decision: The court set aside the allotment of L.P.G distributorship in favor of a respondent and directed re-advertisement of the location under the Reserved Category.
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. This case is a classic example as to how a Compensatory Benefit reserved in favour of various categories for setting up L.P.G distributorships has been misutilized by tinkering with the expression 'family unit'.
About the Policy
2. Indian Oil Corporation, a Government of India subsidiary, has framed guidelines on selection of Regular L.P.G Distributorship.
3. That, a percentage reservation for various categories in all the State is in the following terms:
"2. Eligibility Criteria
The percentage reservation for various categories in all the States except Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Mizoram are as under:-
A Open Category (O) 50.50%
B Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) 22.50%
C Other Backward Classes (OBC) 27.00%
4. In each of the above categories, there will be subcategories as under:
Sub Category Reservation Categories (in %)
SC/ST OBC Open Total
Government Personnel category (GP) consisting of Defence, Central/State Govt. and Central/State PSU employees 2 2 4 8
Combined Category (CC) consisting of Physically Handicapped Personnel (PH), Outstanding Sports Persons (OSP), Freedom Fighter (FF) 1 1 2 4
Any person from the respective category 19.5 24 44.5 88
TOTAL 22.25 27 50.5 100
The reservation under respective categories is SC/ST (GP)-2%, SC/ST (CC)-1%, SC/ST-19.5%, OBC (GP)-2%, OBC (CC)-1%, OBC-24%, Open (GP)-4%, Open (CC)-2%, Open-44.5%.
State-wise 200-point' roster is maintained on Industry basis (i.e. jointly by IOCL, BPCL and HPCL) to ensure the percentage reservations as mentioned above is achieved. The Distribution between SC and ST is as per the population ratio in the respective State.
5. We are presently concerned with Government Personnel category (GP) which consist of defense, Central/State Government and Central/State Public Sector employees.
About the petitioner:
6. Petitioner in paragraph 5.1 of the petition admits that under Open (GP) category the persons who are dependents of deceased Government employee who has died during the service are eligible to submit the application. She has, however, not given her resume which has been disclosed by the Respondent No. 5 in the Return. It is contended that the petitioner is married to one Shri Devendra Sharma on 12.6.2012 which is subsisting. It is urged that, father-in-law of the petitioner was a defence personnel. There are two distributor license given by the Indian Oil Corporation in the name of Smt. Abhilasha Sharma, mother-in-law of the petitioner which are being operated at Budni, Sehore in the name of M/s. Major K.K. Filling Station and another at Badi, district Raisen in the name as M/s. Pushkar Indane. It is further stated that the petitioner's father was employed as Store Incharge and Accountant in the Department of Health, Government of Madhya Pradesh, who expired on 12.2.1996. But to take an advantage of the reservation, petitioner though married and lives in Bhopal, had purchased a property at Shahdol on 7.10.2013 for L.P.G dealership showing her as dependent of deceased father, on the basis of dependency certificate issued by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shahdol on 7.10.2013. Evidently, these facts are not disclosed by the petitioner nor has she denied by filing rejoinder.
About respondent No. 5
7. As borne out from record, and not disputed by respondent No. 5 that, his faher was Sub Inspector in Chhattisgarh Police who died on 6.9.2001 while in service. He is survived by widow and two sons, viz., Siddharth Singh and Deobrat Singh (respondent No. 5). That on the basis of certificate of dependency issued in favour of Siddharth Singh on 17.11.2009 he was awarded RGGLV at Shyampur on said dependency certificate. Respondent No. 5, second son of late Jogendra Singh was issued a dependency certificate on 26.3.2010 by the Superintendent of Police Raipur as the dependent of late Jogendra Singh. It is on the basis whereof he applied for L.P.G dealership at location E-08 Extension/Trilanga/Gulmohar/Bawadiyakalan/Aakriti Eco City and adjo
