Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 156 (PAT)

Pallavi v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

2014-01-31

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 4.9.2013 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, respondent no. 2 by which the application of the petitioner for grant of LPG dealership under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Scheme pursuant to advertisement dated 28.6.2013 has been rejected. 3. The ground mentioned in the order of rejection is : “You do not have own land in the advertised location as applicable.” 4. In the advertisement dated 28.6.2013 the location was advertised as Nagar/Gram- Akbarnagar, Gram Panchayat- Akbarnagar, Block-Sultanganj, District-Bhagalpur. The petitioner in her application showed a piece of land belonging to her husband located in village Kheraihiya, T.A. Akbarnagar, District-Bhagalpur. 5. It is the stand of the petitioner that the land in question although in village Kheraihiya, is located in Gram Panchayat-Akbarnagar and therefore eligible in terms of the advertisement. By the letter dated 4.9.2013 the petitioner was informed that her candidature has not been found to be eligible for RGGLV as she did not have any land in the advertised location as applicable. On receipt of the same, the petitioner filed a representation on 16.9.2013 stating that the owners of the land in question are her husband and two brothers of her husband and copies of the sale deeds and rent receipts were annexed. However, the same has also been rejected by letter dated 30.11.2013 stating that the petitioner did not have own land for construction of godown in the advertised location, as applicable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement mentions that the land should be located in Gram Panchayat-Akbarnagar and the land of the petitioner is in the said Gram Panchayat, although it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the required minimum dimension of the plot 21 meter x 26 meter is not fulfilled solely by the land of the petitioner’s husband but together with the lands of the two brothers of her husband. The said criteria is available and therefore, the petitioner should have been permitted to rectify the deficiency by at the very least getting the land of the brothers on lease for the purpose of construction of godown as there is provision in Clause 8.5 of the Brochure For Selection of RGGLV that in case deficiencies are found in the application, a letter would be sent to the applicant to rectify the deficiencies within a specified period of time. 7. Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the advertised location was village Akbarnagar and not Gram Panchayat Akbarnagar and it is evident from the application of the petitioner herself that the plot in question was located in village-Kheraihiya which is one of the villages forming part of the larger Akbarnagar Gram Panchayat. Thus, evidently the land offered by the petitioner was not located in the village which has been advertised as the location. 8. It is further submitted by learned counsel that in terms of the Brochure, there must be clear ownership title of the property in the name of the applicant/family members of the “Family Unit”, which, in the case of the petitioner, would include her husband, children or land belonging to parents and grandparents (both maternal or paternal) as on the last date of the application as specified in the advertisement. It is urged that on the said ground also the land belonging to the brothers of the husband of the petitioner could not have been taken into consideration. Learned counsel also submits that the eligibility of clear ownership title over the land is to be fulfilled on the last date of submission of application as specified in the advertisement and the same is not a rectifiable deficiency under Clause 8.5 by any subsequent lease or purchase of land for the purpose of construction of godown. 9. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of learned counsels for the parties, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. It is evident from the application form of the petitioner and the admitted position in the writ petition that the land offered by her is not situated in the advertised location of village Akbarnagar, rather it was located in another village Kheraihiya. 10. It is evident from the application form of the petitioner and the admitted position in the writ petition that the land offered by her is not situated in the advertised location of village Akbarnagar, rather it was located in another village Kheraihiya. The fact that it fell within the larger village of the Gram Panchayat is irrelevant for the consideration of the same as that of any one offering any land within the district Bhagalpur for the said purpose. 11. It is thus evident that the land of the petitioner did not belong to the advertised location. Additionally the petitioner would also be considered to be disqualified as she did not have clear ownership title of the property either in her name or in the name of her husband, children, parents and grandparents on the date of application and the argument that the land of the two brothers of her husband could be included is irrelevant for consideration of the application. Any arrangement in that regard ought to have been made before the last date of submission of the application as given in the advertisement. Thus, in any view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.