Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 473 (RAJ)

Hanumangarh Gas Agency v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-14

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the resolution dated 27.01.1994 passed by Public Grievances and Vigilance Committee, Sriganganagar whereby the Committee resolved to make a recommendation to Indian Oil Corporation to cancel Liquid Petroleum Gas Agency allotted to the petitioner. The Committee resolved to make aforesaid recommendation on the count that the petitioner procured allotment of Liquid Petroleum Gas Agency by producing a bona fide resident certificate pertaining to District Hanumangarh which was obtained by making false statement and by placing wrong facts. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Public Grievances and Vigilance Committee is not a statutory body and is also having no jurisdiction to make such recommendations. .3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the Public Grievances and Vigilance Committee was constituted by the Government of Rajasthan under an order dated 20.10.1983 for the purpose of taking appropriate steps for redressal of the grievances made by the public at large. It is further stated that the Public Grievances and Vigilance Committee, Sriganganagar received certain complaints against the petitioner on basis of which an inquiry was made and it was found that proprietor of the petitioner firm Shri Rampal Singh obtained bona fide resident certificate of Hanumangarh District by placing wrong facts before the authority competent to issue bona fide resident certificate. 4. A rejoinder to the reply has been filed reiterating the averments contained in the writ petition. 5. I have heard Counsel for the parties. 6. In my considered opinion the cause agitated by the petitioner is not ripe. The Public Grievances and Vigilance Committee has prima facie found some irregularity in issuance of the bona fide resident certificate to the proprietor of the petitioner firm. The recommendation made by the Committee is nothing but a sort of complaint sought to be made to the Indian Oil Corporation. It is for the Indian Oil Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law on the recommendation if any is made to it by the Committee. 7. As stated above, the recommendation made by the Committee is a sort of complaint and, therefore, Indian Oil Corporation cannot cancel allotment of Liquid Petroleum Gas Agency made in favour of the petitioner just on basis of the said recommendation. 7. As stated above, the recommendation made by the Committee is a sort of complaint and, therefore, Indian Oil Corporation cannot cancel allotment of Liquid Petroleum Gas Agency made in favour of the petitioner just on basis of the said recommendation. The Corporation is required to act in accordance with law if it want to take any action against the petitioner on basis of the recommendation made by the Committee. The apprehension of the petitioner that the Indian Oil Corporation will cancel the allotment of Liquid Petroleum Gas Agency on basis of the recommendation made by the Public Grievances and Vigilance Committee is ill-founded at this stage. In view of it, I do not find any reason to interfere with the cause agitated by the petitioner at this stage. 8. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed accordingly.