2023 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 9760
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ
NASIRUDDIN AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER – Respondent
LPA 59 / 2022
An unsuccessful candidate for L.P.G distributorship lacks the legal standing to compel an inquiry into the selection process through a writ of mandamus.
Headnote:(A) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Guidelines - Writ of Mandamus - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for an inquiry regarding alleged fraud in L.P.G distributorship allocation. The writ Court directed IOCL to consider the petitioner's representation without addressing foundational claims. The court emphasized that a right to an inquiry is not established for an unsuccessful candidate. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Legal Duty - The court referenced Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of Nalanda College, establishing that mandamus requires a legal duty and corresponding right to enforce it. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the allottee in securing L.P.G distributorship and sought an inquiry and cancellation of the allotment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the writ Court's direction for an inquiry was improper as the petitioner did not establish a legal right to compel such action.
Issues: The main issue was whether an unsuccessful candidate has a right to demand an inquiry into the allotment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an unsuccessful candidate lacks the legal standing to compel an inquiry, and due process must be observed before such directives are issued.
Result: The writ Court's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
ORDER
29 th August 2023
The writ petitioner was one of the applicants for award of L.P.G distributorship at Giddi (CT) in the district of Hazaribagh. He came to the writ Court in W.P(C) No.1869 of 2021 with the following prayers:
(c) And, also prays for holding lottery/ draw afresh soon amongst the already selected and left over 9 Candidates/applicants including this Petitioner in view of sl. No. 20 of the Guidelines/instruction for L.P.G distributors contained in Brochure of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. which provides for holding fresh draw amongst the left over applicants if distributorship of selected candidate has been cancelled within one year of selection so that most eligible, suitable and valid candidate could cater the services of distribution of L.P.G to its consumers effectively, validly and proficiently.
And/or
For the issuance of any other writ(s), order (s)/direction (s) to Respondent as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case, which are being set forth herein below.”
2. The writ Court referring to the allegations of forgery committed and misrepresentation made by the allottee for securing L.P.G distributorship from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short, “IOCL”) has passed the following order:
“2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent no.1-I.O.C.L through the Chief Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.), Ranchi on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 1 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 3 and on making due enquiry, if so required, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within two months from the date of filing of the representation.”
3. On a glance at the direction issued by the writ Court, we find that the IOCL has been directed to conduct an enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and then to take an informed decision in accordance with law.
4. At the outset, Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that without issuing a notice and without hearing the appellant the aforesaid direction has been passed by the writ Court.
5. In our opinion, the writ Court has issued a mandamus for which the foundational facts were not pleaded in the writ petition. The writ petitioner who lost the contest for the award of L.P.G distributorship could not have come to the writ Court with a suggestion for conducting a roving enquiry. Bei