Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 993 (RAJ)

Manish Kumar Nagar v. Union of India

2012-04-18

AJAY RASTOGI

body2012
Judgment : Matter has come up on application filed by the respondent U/Art.226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex-parte interim order passed by the Court dt.31.01.2012. However, with consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard at this stage. The respondent-Corporation issued an advertisement dt.17.10.2009 (Ann.1) for distribution of LPG dealership for several different locations including Nagar Fort, District Tonk under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vikrak Scheme (“RGGLV”) for which the petitioner was one of the applicant for location Nagar Fort, District Tonk mentioned at serial No.76 of the advertisement and after fulfillment of the conditions was found eligible and qualified for selection and the respondents called the eligible applicants vide their letter dated 7.4.2010 to remain present during the draw proceedings which were scheduled to be held on 28.4.2010 and on that date itself, selection letter was issued to the petitioner Ann.4 and at the stage of field verification of credentials furnished was examined in terms of the advertisement. It revealed that the documents submitted by the petitioner of the subject land were not of the advertised location in terms of advertisement, and accordingly, decision was taken by the respondents & communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 5.1.2012(Ann.7) that on field verification of credentials furnished by the petitioner regarding subject land is not acceptable. The extract is quoted here ad infra: “the land offered by you for the construction of LPG Godown is situated at village Udaipuria, Tehsil Deoli, Dist.Tonk and not at the advertised location, which is Village Nagar Fort, Tehsil Deoli, Dist.Tonk.” Counsel for petitioner submits that the subject land offered by the petitioner might have been at village Udaipuria, Tehsil Deoli, Dist.Tonk, but the said land is situated at a short distance from the location as demanded by the respondents and that being so the ground which was made a basis by the respondents while taking decision vide their letter dt.5.1.2012 eliminating name of the petitioner on the basis of subject land offered is not at the advertised location, is not sustainable in view of documents & evidence which have come on record. It will be relevant to observe that the advertisement was for various locations and Kasba/Village Nagar Fort, Dist.Tonk was mentioned at serial No.76 in the advertisement and admittedly the land offered by the petitioner falls within Gram Udaipuria and after the dispute arose, the respondent-Corporation sent a letter dt.25.11.2011 (Ann.R/1) to the Tehsildar, Deoli for verification of the subject land offered from the revenue records as to whether village Udaipuria and village Nagar Fort are two different places or not and whether the subject land offered by the petitioner falls within patwar mandal Nagar Fort, pursuant to which Tehsildar sent its report dt.29.11.2011(Ann.R/2) stating that village Nagar Fort and village Udaipuria are two separate revenue Grams having separate revenue records. From the registered sale deed of the subject land, it has been pointed out that the land in question is two kms. ahead from the abadi area of Gram Nagar Fort and admittedly the subject land falls in Gram Udaipuria. Counsel for respondents on the other hand submits that the subject land offered by the petitioner is not situated at the location as demanded by the respondents in their advertisement. Hence, no error has been committed by the respondents while rejecting the application of the petitioner under order impugned. From the material which has come on record, the subject land falls in Gram Udaipuria and what was demanded by the respondents in their advertisement was Gram/Kasba Nagar Fort and admittedly the subject land offered by the petitioner was not at the location advertised by the respondents. This Court does not find any error being committed by the respondents in their decision-making process, which may require interference of this Court under its equitable jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, counsel for petitioner further submits that apart from the dispute raised herein, at least the respondents must be specific about the location being advertised so as to curtail the litigations to some extent, which are coming to this Court. This Court finds substance in the submission made by counsel for petitioner and taking note thereof, this Court considers it appropriate to observe that the respondents may in future try to pin point the exact locations desired in their advertisement so as to avoid litigation as far as possible. However, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.