Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1012 (PAT)

Sajjan Kumar Paswan v. Union Of India

2006-11-07

J.N.BHATT, S.K.SINHA

body2006
Judgment J.N.Bhatt, J. 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.9.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 16149 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the claim for dealership made by the original writ petitioner, respondent No. 7 herein, came to be allowed. 2. With a view to appreciating the merits of the Letters Patent Appeal and challenge against it, let thee be material projection of facts having relevance and bearing on the point in issue. 3. Respondent No. 2 The Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Corporation) had issued an advertisement which was published in the newspaper inviting applications for the grant of retail dealership for various places including Saharsa town which is the bone of contention in this Letters Patent Appeal. The original respondent No. 9, the present appellant, the original writ petitioner, respondent No. 7 herein and others applied for the same. The process of selection was undertaken by the Dealership Selection Board. It had, also, held the interview. The petitioners interview letter dated 6.3.2001 informing him of the proposed interview on 29.3.2001 is, also, placed on the record. 4. During the course of the process of selection by the Expert Committee three names were short listed out of which the present appellant Sajjan Kumar Paswan, original respondent No. 9 was selected for the dealership, whereas, the claim for dealership of original petitioner was rejected. He, therefore, knocked the doors of justice by filing a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Upon consideration of the facts and evaluation of the material on record, the learned Single Judge reached to the conclusion that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for the dealership was not justified. The petition, therefore, came to be allowed with a direction to the Corporation. to grant dealership to the original petitioner who was at serial No. 2 in the select list out of the three, whereas, the present appellant was at serial No. 1, in accordance with law and the established procedure. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal by unsuccessful original respondent No. 9. 6. Upon joint request of learned Counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. We have been addressed by learned Counsels. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal by unsuccessful original respondent No. 9. 6. Upon joint request of learned Counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. We have been addressed by learned Counsels. We have, also, considered the factual profile, as well as, the text and texture of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that one of the terms and conditions incorporated in clause 7 of the advertisement was that a candidate was eligible to claim dealership provided that the selected candidate shall be a full time active dealer. The learned Single Judge, upon evaluation and analysis of the facts on the record found that the order not granting dealership to original writ petitioner is not justified and is contrary to the provision of terms and conditions incorporated in the advertisement. 8. The learned Single Judge, also, found that the present appellant, original respondent No. 9 in the petition was at the relevant point of time had been in continuous service at the Institute from 27.3.1998 as a Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department and his current emolument per month is Rs. 14,378.00 . 9. Upon our examination and critical evaluation of the facts on record it becomes clear that there was infraction and violation of clause 7 of the advertisement which provided that the appointed dealer shall be working for full time actively. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that since the original writ petitioner was at serial No. 2 and the present appellant at serial No. 1 in the select list was not eligible to qualify the claim for dealership, directed the respondent Corporation to grant dealership to the original writ petitioner, respondent No. 7 in this appeal in accordance with law arid established procedure. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the Selection Board has taken a correct view and the learned Single Judge has assumed on a wrong facts. We are unable to uphold this contention in absence of any relevant material on the record. Dealership by the respondent Corporation for the Petrol Pump was out of the Scheduled Caste quota. The comparative income is, also, seen. There is an upper ceiling that a candidate and his family must not have annual income exceeding Rs. 2,00000.00 . This aspect is, also, considered by the learned Single Judge. 11. Dealership by the respondent Corporation for the Petrol Pump was out of the Scheduled Caste quota. The comparative income is, also, seen. There is an upper ceiling that a candidate and his family must not have annual income exceeding Rs. 2,00000.00 . This aspect is, also, considered by the learned Single Judge. 11. In our opinion, when there is sufficient material to find that the provision incorporated in clause 7 of the advertisement for the dealership of the petrol pump under Scheduled quota is not successfully answered by the present appellant, original respondent No. 9, he cannot be assisted. 12. Apart from that the jurisdictional scope of the writ under Art. 226 is very much limited. The writ Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the Board known as Dealership Selection Board wherein one of the members has been a retired High Court Judge or a District Judge. There is no any allegation of mala fide or bias. 13. On the assessment of the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case coupled with the terms and condition incorporated in the advertisement, the learned Single Judge has reached a view which cannot be said to be unjust, unreasonable and perverse requiring interference of this Court. It is in these context, we need not divulge on other aspects or other submissions as first one goes to the root of the matter. 14. Before parting, let it be mentioned that the direction to grant dealership to next person in the merit list cannot be questioned to be unjustified. If on judicial scrutiny the alleged persons or in whose favour the order has been passed for grant of dealership of Petrol Pump is found ineligible or not qualified, the person next in the merit list can be provided with the dealership. This is, also, extensively made clear by the Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Singh V/s. Union of India and Ors. 2004(1) Patna Law Journal Reports 30 (SC). This case is, squarely, attracted by the ratio propounded in the aforesaid decision. Reliance place on a decision rendered in Sangeeta Singh V/s. Union of India and Ors. - by learned Counsel for the appellant is examined by us. The area covered by the said judgment is not at all coming into picture in the present case. This case is, squarely, attracted by the ratio propounded in the aforesaid decision. Reliance place on a decision rendered in Sangeeta Singh V/s. Union of India and Ors. - by learned Counsel for the appellant is examined by us. The area covered by the said judgment is not at all coming into picture in the present case. Learned Counsel is unable to make any profit out of the said decision. 15. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal upon full-fledged hearing, shall stand dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs.