[2025:RJ-JP:48750]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9068/2014

Smt Sushila Lamba w/o Shri Sumer Lamba, Aged 39 years, r/o

VPO ramjipura, khachariawas, district- Sikar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Indian Oil Corp Ltd Through the managing Director, G-9 Ali

Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra.

2. The Manager (LPG-S), Area Officer, Jaipur, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jaipur Regional Office, SPL 1297, Sitapura

Industrial Area, Goner Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9067/2014

Narendra Lamba S/o Shri Govind Singh Lamba, Aged 34 years,

R/o Ramjipura, Khachariawas, District-Sikar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Indian Oil Corp Ltd. through the Managing Director, G-9, Ail

Yavvar Jung Marg Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra.

2. The Manager (LPG-S), Area Officer, Jaipur, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jaipur Regional Office, SPL 1297, Sitapura

Industrial Area, Goner Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal,

Ms. Alisha Chopra,

Ms. Tanisha Kumawat,

Ms. Nidhi Samodia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

01/12/2025

1. These petitions are heard together and are decided by this

common order.

2. These instant writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred against the letter dated 03.06.2014, by which the petitioners' candidature for participation in the draw for the final selection of an LPG distributor for the Dantaramgarh area was dismissed.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that, inadvertently, they were unable to submit annexure 2, and their candidature for distribution of LPG was dismissed without following the guidelines enshrined in the advertisement dated 21.09.2013. It is also contended that it was obligatory for the respondent, under Clause 8.5 of Guidelines on Selection of Regular LPG Distributorship dated 13.08.2013, to allow the removal of that deficiency; however, without giving the notices to remove the deficiency, the petitioners' candidature was rejected. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petition was submitted on 28.08.2014, and the notices were issued on 03.09.2014, and the order of stay was passed in the presence of counsel for the respondent, i.e. on 14.10.2014.

4. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that both the petitioners gave wrong declaration in the application form submitted before the authorities and categorically tick marked the box (✓) disclosing the fact that "I have enclosed notarized affidavit in original as appendix to as applicable" thus, it is not a case of deficiency rather it is a case of wrong declaration and the applicant have not complied with the conditions and gave a wrong undertaking containing the facts above. It is also contended that the writ petition was filed on 28.08.2014, and the process of participation and making the final selection list ended on 09.09.2014. It is also claimed that the petitioners have not amended the prayer for relief, rendering their petition infructuous.

5. Heard and perused the material available on record.

6. I do not find any illegality in rejecting the petitioners applications as petitioners while applying for the distributorship of LPG gas did not mention the correct declaration instead in the serial No.16 under the heading of "Check list of applicants, have tick marked the check box as (✓) at serial No.5. At serial No.5, it has been specifically mentioned that "I have enclosed notarized affidavit in original as per appendix-2 as applicable".

7. Furthermore, in reply to the writ petition, the respondent have categorically stated at para-3 of the reply that the petitioners never submitted appendix along with the application and appendix-2 was the mandatory requisite for consideration of the application, therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the