Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 972 (JHR)

Rita Devi v. Indian Oil Corporation

2013-08-17

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2013
ORDER This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.11.2011 (Annexure-6) passed by Senior Area Manager, Ranchi Area, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, whereby and whereunder the candidature of petitioner for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak (RGGLV) dealership at Jaridih, District – Bokaro, has been rejected. 2. It appears that the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') had issued an Advertisement for awarding dealership under the Scheme of RGGLV, Jaridih. In the said Advertisement, it is mentioned that the said L.P.G. dealership is for the people of the Villages – Jena, Kala pathar, Araju. One of the conditions mentioned in the Advertisement is that the applicant must be a resident of the town / villages of the advertised RGGLV location. The second mandatory condition is that the applicant must own a suitable land (plot) having an area of 20 m x 24 m within the RGGLV location. It appears that the petitioner had applied for distributorship of RGGLV at Jaridih (Village Cluster – Jena, Kala pathar, Araju). In the application (Annexure-2), petitioner stated that she is a resident of Telaiyatand, Jena (Jaridih). In the said application, petitioner further stated that she has got land for L.P.G. Godown at Telaiyatand, Jena, Jaridih. It is relevant to mention that Corporation organized a lottery on 30.08.2011 for allocation of dealership of RGGLV, Jaridih, in which all the eligible candidates participated. In the said lottery, petitioner has been selected. Thereafter, according to Clause-12.9 of the Brochure (Annexure-1/1), the officer of Corporation conducted field verification for ascertaining the truthfulness of the information given by the petitioner in her application. It appears from verification report, annexed with counter affidavit, (Annexure-RA), that the land of petitioner situated at Mouza – Bandhdih under Jaridih Block. It was also found that petitioner is a resident of Village – Bandhdih. Accordingly, Senior Area Manager of Ranchi Area of Corporation has rejected the candidature of the petitioner vide his order dated 24.11.2011, because he found variance in the application of petitioner with that of field verification report. The aforesaid order impugned in this writ application. 3. Sri Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the Advertisement, it is clear that the dealership is for the entire area of Jaridih Block. The aforesaid order impugned in this writ application. 3. Sri Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the Advertisement, it is clear that the dealership is for the entire area of Jaridih Block. He further submits that petitioner is a resident of Village – Bandhdih and the said Village is within the territory of Jaridih Block. He also submits that the petitioner owns landed property in Bandhdih i.e. in the Jaridih Block. Under the said circumstance, petitioner is eligible for applying for the dealership, which is going to be awarded for Jaridih (Village Cluster -Jena, Kala pathar, Araju). Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order has been illegally passed with a view to deny dealership to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Sri A.N. Gupta and Sri Sachin Kumar, learned counsels appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 & 5 submit that according to Clause – 4 (b) of the Brochure (Annexure-1/1), it is imperative for the applicant that he or she must be a resident of town / village(s) of the advertised RGGLV location. In the instant case, the Advertisement was for Jaridih (Cluster Villages Jena, Kala pathar, Araju). Thus, it is necessary for the applicant to show that he or she is resident of any of the aforesaid three villages. Admittedly, petitioner is not resident of Village – Jena or Kala pathar or Araju. Thus, she is not eligible for the dealership of Jaridih. Learned counsels for the respondents further submit that as per Clause – 4 (G) of the Brochure (Annexure-1/1), it is necessary for the applicant to show that she owns land within the advertised RGGLV location for construction of L.P.G. Cylinder Storage Godown. It is submitted that from the sale deed (attached with the application of the petitioner), it is clear that she owns land at Village – Bandhdih. Accordingly, it is submitted that on the own showing of the petitioner, she is not eligible for the L.P.G. dealership. It is submitted that with a view to duped Corporation, the petitioner purposely mentioned in her application that she is a resident of Telaiyatand, Jena (Jaridih) and further stated that she has got landed property at Telaiyatand, Jena (Jaridih). Accordingly, it is submitted that on the own showing of the petitioner, she is not eligible for the L.P.G. dealership. It is submitted that with a view to duped Corporation, the petitioner purposely mentioned in her application that she is a resident of Telaiyatand, Jena (Jaridih) and further stated that she has got landed property at Telaiyatand, Jena (Jaridih). The aforesaid wrong statement of the petitioner detected by the authority of the Corporation during the field verification and because of aforesaid variance found in the statements made in the application and field verification report candidature of petitioner has been rejected by Annexure-6. It is submitted that the impugned order is legal and in accordance with Clause – 12.9 & 12.10 of the Brochure (Annexure-1/1). 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of Advertisement, it is clear that the Corporation issued advertisement for awarding dealership of RGGLV for the location of Jaridih (Cluster Villages – Jena, Kala pathar & Araju). From the said Advertisement, it is clear that Corporation also advertised the dealership for the cluster of Villages – Bandhdih, Tandmohanpur and Kalyanpur falling under the same Jaridih Block. In the Advertisement as well as in the Brochure (Annexure-1/1), it is one of the essential eligibility criteria that the applicant must be a resident of the area of advertised RGGLV. Another essential criteria is that the applicant must own land for construction of L.P.G. Storage Godown in the location of advertised RGGLV. It appears that petitioner applied for the dealership of RGGLV, Jaridih. In the said application, she stated that she is a resident of Telaiyatand, Jena (Jaridih) and she further stated that she owns land at Telaiyatand, Jena, Jaridih. It appears that she had been selected in the lottery. Thereafter, as per Clause – 12.9 of Annexure – 1/1 an officer of the Corporation did field verification and found that the petitioner wrongly mentioned that she is resident of Telaiyatand, Jena, Jaridih and wrongly declared that she owns land at Telaiyatand, Jena, Jaridih. On verification, it was found that petitioner is a resident of Village – Bandhdih and she owns land at Bandhdih. Thus, she made wrong statement in her application. On verification, it was found that petitioner is a resident of Village – Bandhdih and she owns land at Bandhdih. Thus, she made wrong statement in her application. In the Brochure, it is mentioned at Clause – 12.10 that if on field investigation, it is found that the selected candidates had given wrong statements then his or her candidature will be canceled and a fresh draw will be held again from the remaining eligible candidates. It appears that in view of the aforesaid stipulation in the Brochure, the candidature of the petitioner has been canceled by the impugned order (Annexure-6). 6. The contention of Sri Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner does not inspire confidence because in the Advertisement as well as in the Brochure (Annexure-1/1), it is clear that an applicant for the dealership of RGGLV shall be the resident of the town / Villages of the location for which the advertisement made. Thus, the said condition shows that the applicant must be a resident of the cluster of villages for which the RGGLV advertised. Admittedly, in the instant case, RGGLV, Jaridih is for the cluster of Villages – Jena, Kala pathar & Araju. Thus, as per the aforesaid condition, it is essential for the applicant to be a resident of any of aforesaid three villages. Admittedly, petitioner is not a resident of the said villages and she wrongly declared that she is resident of Telaiyatand, Jena with a view to duped Corporation, so that she may be considered for the dealership. Not only this, petitioner does not own any land in any of the Villages for which RGGLV advertised, but she again gave wrong statement in her application that she owns land in Telaiyatand, Jena. Under the said circumstance, I find that respondent – Corporation has rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner for RGGLV advertised. I find no illegality in the said order. 7. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application. Thus, the same is dismissed.