Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
VIJAY KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
The Union – Respondent
CWJC/758/2021
A writ application seeking to challenge a decision that has not been previously challenged lacks bona fide and may be dismissed with costs.
Headnote:
LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP - SELECTION - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - VIOLATION
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the selection of Respondent No. 4 as an LPG distributor, alleging that it was done in violation of eligibility criteria and that the plot offered by Respondent No. 4 for the construction of a godown and showroom had a high voltage line running over it.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner had previously filed a similar complaint in CWJC No. 16085 of 2018, which was disposed of with liberty to file a fresh representation after depositing costs. The petitioner did so, and his complaint was rejected by the competent authority on 05.03.2019. The petitioner did not challenge this decision.
Issues: Whether the selection of Respondent No. 4 as an LPG distributor was done in violation of eligibility criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's application lacked bona fide since he had not challenged the decision of the Corporation communicated through the letter dated 05.03.2019 and was seeking the same direction as in the previous writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited in the account of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.758 of 2021
======================================================
VIJAY KUMAR SON OF ASHOK KUMAR SHARAN Resident of Village
and P.o.- Chhatauna, P.s. and Prakhand- Piprahi, District- Shivhar (Bihar)
843327
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Union of India through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-11001
2.
The Regional Manager (Area Manager) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Near Narayanpur Anant Railway Station, Resident of Village- Sherpur, P.o.-
MIC Bela, Mujaffarpur (Bihar), Pin-842005
3.
The Chief Manager/Chief Executive Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Registered Office Bharat Bhawan, 4 and 6 Karim Bhai Road,
Belard Estate, Post Box No. 688, Mumbai (Maharasta), Pin Code-400001
4.
VIKAS KUMAR Son of Lalbabu Choudhary Resident of Village- Arkoni,
P.s.- Tariyari, District- Shivhar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner
:
Mr. Virendra Kumar
For the Respondent UoI :
Mr. Dr. K. N. Singh ( Asg )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH)
2
13-01-2022
This matter has been taken up for hearing online
because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
2. Mr. Anirudh Mishra, learned counsel submits that he
has been instructed by Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel to
argue this case on behalf of the petitioner.
3. This writ application has been filed seeking direction
to the respondents to cancel L.P.G. distributorship of
Respondent No.4, who, according to the petitioner, has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.758 of 2021(2) dt.13-01-2022
2/3
wrongly selected by ignoring the eligibility criteria.
4. From the pleadings on record, it appears that the
petitioner, raising similar complaint, had approached this Court
by filing a writ petition giving rise to CWJC No. 16085 of 2018,
which was disposed of on 30.11.2018 with a liberty to the
petitioner to file a fresh representation after depositing cost of
Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) under unified guidelines for
selection of L.P.G. distributor. The petitioner, accordingly, filed
a representation thereafter before the competent authority.
5. From a communication dated 05.03.2019, which has
been brought on record by way of Annexure-3 of the writ
application, it appears that the petitioner’s complaint was
threadbare considered by the competent authority, before
rejection of his complaint. The petitioner did not challenge the
said communication dated 05.03.2019 before any forum. Even
in the present proceeding, there is no challenge to the said
communication dated 05.03.2019. The petitioner, in the present
writ application, is again seeking a direction for cancellation of
the distributorship in favour of the respondent No.4.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that the distributorship has been awarded in
favour of respondent No.4 in gross violation of the provisions in
Patna High Court CWJC No.758 of 2021(2) dt.13-01-2022
3/3
that regard, ignoring the fact that a high voltage line of 11000
volt is running over the plot of the land offered by the
respondents for construction of godown and the show room.
7. Since the petitioner has chosen not to question the
correctness of the decision of the Corporation communicated
through letter dated 05.03.2019 and has filed the writ
application by seeking the same direction, as noted above, in our
opinion, this application lacks bona fide and deserves to be
dismissed with cost.
8. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed
with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) to be deposited in the
account of the Bi
