Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 362 (ALL)

Namrata Verma v. Dy. General Manager (L. P. G. )

2018-02-08

DILIP B.BHOSALE, SUNEET KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : DILIP B. BHOSALE, CJ. 1. Heard Sri Jitendra Nath Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4. 2. Pursuant to advertisement dated 29 September 2013 issued by Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'Corporation') inviting applications for allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship for various locations including location at Govindpur, Allahabad under O.B.C. category, petitioner applied by submitting application form. Petitioner along with the form submitted a lease deed dated 24 October 2013 for the shop and showroom alleged to have been executed by the Allahabad Development Authority for a period of 15 years. During field verification undertaken by the Corporation it appears that the competent officer of the Development Authority informed the Corporation, vide communication dated 24 November 2015, that the lease deed filed by the petitioner is an illegal and bogus document for the reason that Sri Ramesh Chandra, an employee of the Development Authority had no right and authority to execute the lease deed. This fact was reaffirmed by the Authority vide subsequent communication dated 27 May 2016. In the circumstances, the candidature of the petitioner came to the cancelled by the impugned order in terms of clause 6 of the brochure on Guidelines for Selection of Regular L.P.G. Distributors-May 2013 holding therein that petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria on the last date of submission of the form. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the authority of the officer viz. Sri Alok Kumar Pandey, the author of the communications which is the basis for passing of the impugned order contending that he had no authority to communicate on behalf of the Development Authority. Further, it is urged that a sale-deed/free-hold deed was subsequently executed by the Development Authority in respect of the disputed shop on 2 May 2016, therefore, would contend that the irregularity, if any, was subsequently corrected by the Development Authority, hence, it is urged that the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected. 4. Our attention has been drawn to the reply/objection dated 5 June 2016 (Annexure-12) to the petition filed by the petitioner against the communication dated 31 May 2016, cancelling the candidature of the petitioner. 4. Our attention has been drawn to the reply/objection dated 5 June 2016 (Annexure-12) to the petition filed by the petitioner against the communication dated 31 May 2016, cancelling the candidature of the petitioner. In paragraph 6 of the reply/objection it is noted that the lease deed was executed by one Ramesh Singh, Assistant Property Officer of the Development Authority without getting the necessary permission from the Competent Authority though he was authorized to execute the lease deed, however, it is further stated that subsequently sale-deed in respect of the same property was registered by the Authority on 2 May 2016. 5. Our attention has also been drawn to the communication dated 7 September 2015 written by the Development Authority to the Corporation, wherein, it has been stated that shop no. 2 was allotted in favour of the petitioner at Rs. 13,66,000/- being a highest bidder in auction on 1 September 2015. Pursuant thereof, sale-deed/free-hold deed was got registered on 30 June 2015. 6. In this backdrop, it is sought to be urged by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that the dispute, if any, is between the petitioner and the Development Authority. In so far, whether the lease-deed was got duly executed by the competent officer of the Development Authority is a dispute between the petitioner and the Development Authority. Corporation had no option but to take a decision cancelling the candidature of the petitioner on the communications received from the Development Authority which clearly and unambiguously stated that the lease-deed submitted by the petitioner is invalid and bogus document. 7. It is, further, admitted by the petitioner that on the date of submission of application form in 2013, the lease-deed was invalid being bogus document duly denied by the Development Authority on whose behalf the lease-deed was executed. The subsequent sale-deed in respect of the same shop executed in 2016 would not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the reason that it is subsequent to the last date of submission of the application form, therefore, it is urged that Corporation was justified in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner in terms of clause 6 of the Guidelines not being eligible. In the meantime, it is submitted that the L.P.G. Distributorship has been awarded to the fourth respondent upon completing all the formalities. 8. In the meantime, it is submitted that the L.P.G. Distributorship has been awarded to the fourth respondent upon completing all the formalities. 8. In the circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the writ petition. Order accordingly. No cost.