Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 444 (JHR)

Ajit Kumar Hansda v. Union Of India

2002-04-03

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the selection, whereby and whereunder, the Respondent No. 6, Ramesh Tudu and Respondent No. 7, Suprakash Hembram have been shown at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for awarding the dealership of retail outlet in Mihijam area. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a local resident of Mihijam which is in the revenue district of Dumka. He being a Scheduled Tribe applied for the retail outlet at Mihijam in pursuance of advertisement published in the newspaper "HINDUSTAN" on 2nd September, 2000, vide Annexure-1. 3. It is stated that the petitioner has come to know that his name has been placed by the Selection Board at sl. No. 3 below the names of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 4. It was ordered to issue notice on Respondent No. 6 by Courts order dated 7th March, 2002. The requisites having not filed within time, the writ petition stood dismissed against Respondent No. 6. For the said reason, the petitioner filed LA. No. 671/02 for restoration of writ petition as against Respondent No. 6 showing the ground for non-compliance of Courts peremptory order. 5. As prima facie, ground shown in the restoration petition has been found to be good, the Court heard the case on merit to determine as to whether fresh notice be issued on Respondent No. 6 or 7 or not. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the Respondent No. 6 or 7 are residents of revenue district of Dumka under which Mihijam is situated. Respondent No. 6 belongs to the district of Giridih and Respondent No. 7 of the district of Dumka. 7. The counsel for the Corporation placed reliance on Sl. No. 2 of advertisement at Annexure-1 and submitted that those who belong to the old districts of Santhal Parganas, Dumka, Deoghar, Banka, Godda, Pakur, Dhanbad and Giridih all of them were given opportunity to apply. 8. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 being the residents of Giridih and Dumka their cases were also considered they having come within the old district of Santhal Parganas. In this context, the reply given by the counsel for the petitioner is that under Clause GHA of eligibility, a person who is resident of the revenue district is entitled for preference over the members of the other districts. In this context, the reply given by the counsel for the petitioner is that under Clause GHA of eligibility, a person who is resident of the revenue district is entitled for preference over the members of the other districts. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a resident of revenue district of Dumka (particularly, Mihijam) he should have been given preference over Respondent No. 6 who is of the other revenue district of Giridih. 9. However, such submission cannot be accepted as such preference mentioned at Clause GHA of eligibility can be given "in case the other things remain the same." 10. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner has otherwise the same point as was given to Respondent No. 6 or 7 to claim preference over Respondent No. 6 on the other hand, it is the case of petitioner that the Respondent No. 6 has been placed at sl. No. 1, Respondent No. 7 at sl. No. 2 and petitioner at sl. No. 3 which mean Respondent No. 6 has been provided with more point than the petitioner. 11. In the circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merit, it is dismissed.