Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1418 (KAR)

A. B. Rajeevan v. Tahsildar, Sagar Taluk

2019-06-25

B.VEERAPPA

body2019
JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. The petitioner, who was unsuccessful in obtaining the dealership of distribution of LPG under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Yojana is before this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in case Appeal No.RA 85/10-11 dated 17.02.2011 as per Annexure G insofar as holding that respondent No.5 is resident of Anandapuram village for a period of 2 years is concerned, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 28.07.2014 in RA No.10/2013-14 produced as per Annexure J and also to quash the fresh Domicile Certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 29.06.2013 produced as per Annexure K. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that M/s. Indian Oil Corporation invited applications for LPG Distribution Agency for Anandapuram Village under "Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Yojana". The main eligibility criteria for selection is that the applicant should be a resident of the place on the date of filing of the application. Among 28 applicants, the petitioner was the only eligible candidate. However, respondent No.5 on the basis of the false Domicile Certificate obtained by her, was selected as a Distributor. 3. It is further contended that respondent No.5 was born and brought-up at Besur Village and married outside the village and she was a permanent resident of Besur Village which is 45 KM's away from Anandapuram Village. As per the condition of Dealership Licence, before the last date of filing of the application i.e., 04.10.2010, the candidate should be a permanent resident of that place. However, the Police Clearance Certificate dated 01.05.2010, Sale Deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 dated 26.04.2010, Census Report dated 26.04.2010, the endorsement from village Panchayat dated 29.09.2010 and the communication dated 04.10.2010 from the Tahsildar, Sagar, clearly goes to show that respondent No.5 was a resident of Besur Village, not only on the last date of application, but also subsequently. She has shifted residence during the fag end of 2010, only for the purpose of securing the Distributor Licence. All these documents were produced by the petitioner before the Appellate Authorities as well as before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar initially issued a Certificate stating that she is a resident of Anandapuram Village for 29 years. That was the subject matter of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in case No.RA.85/2010-11, which came to be rejected on 17.02.2011. 4. All these documents were produced by the petitioner before the Appellate Authorities as well as before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar initially issued a Certificate stating that she is a resident of Anandapuram Village for 29 years. That was the subject matter of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in case No.RA.85/2010-11, which came to be rejected on 17.02.2011. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in No.RA.28/2010-11, which came to be partly allowed. The orders of Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner are set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. That was the subject matter before this Court in W.P. No.27414/2013, which came to be rejected on 27.06.2013. Upon fresh enquiry, the Tahsildar issued a Domicile Certificate certifying that respondent No.5 was a resident of Anadapuram village for the past 5 years. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner was rejected and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Domicile Certificate was issued by the Tahsildar in favour of respondent No.5. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for relief sought for. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri. Ajith Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has contended that respondent No.5 was a permanent resident of Besur village as could be seen from the Police Clearance Certificate dated 01.05.2010, sale deed dated 26.04.2010, Census report dated 26.04.2010 and an endorsement issued by the Village Panchayat dated 29.09.2010 and the communication dated 04.10.2010 from the Tahsildar, Sagar. 7. He further contended that respondent No.4 ignoring the said materials on record, has proceeded to grant the distribution of LPG dealership for Anadapuram village in favour of respondent No.5, cannot be sustained. 8. He further contended that the provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as under: Wife's domicile during marriage.- A Wife's domicile during her marriage follows the domicile of her husband. Exception.- The wife's domicile no longer follows that of her husband if they are separated by the sentence of a competent Court, or if the husband is undergoing a sentence of transpiration. Exception.- The wife's domicile no longer follows that of her husband if they are separated by the sentence of a competent Court, or if the husband is undergoing a sentence of transpiration. Therefore, he submits that the husband of respondent No.5 is a permanent resident of Besur village, therefore the Authorities were not justified in granting the dealership of distribution of LPG under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Yojana in respect of respondent No.5 for Anandapuram village. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Domicile Certificate issued by the Tahsildar in favour of respondent No.5. He further contended that after considering the entire materials on record and based on the report of the Tahsildar, who is the jurisdictional Authority and the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner as per Annexures G and J, the Domicile Certificate issued on 29.06.2013 is in consonance with the Government notification made in DPAR 13 EGM, Bengaluru dated 10.08.2007 therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Sri. Vignesh S. Shastri, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that in view of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, respondent No.4 already allotted the dealership of Anandapuram village in favour of respondent No.5 in the year 2014 and has been distributing the same. At this stage, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the respondent-authorities in the impugned orders. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Sri. M.S. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5 sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and the Domicile Certificate issued by the Tahsildar and contended that the provisions of Section 16 of the Act applies only wife's domicile during marriage under the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The same is not applicable, where the dealership issued in favour of respondent No.5 by respondent No.4 and the Domicile Certificate issued in terms of the Government notification issued time to time. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 12. The same is not applicable, where the dealership issued in favour of respondent No.5 by respondent No.4 and the Domicile Certificate issued in terms of the Government notification issued time to time. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the issue is with regard to allotment of dealership for distribution of LPG under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Yogana. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 had produced false documents and obtained dealership from respondent No.4, which was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner on earlier occasion in RA No.85/10-11, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in No.RA.28/2010-11, which came to be partly allowed. The orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner are set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. That was the subject matter before this Court in W.P. No.27414/2013, which came to be rejected on 27.06.2013. 13. After remand, upon fresh enquiry, the Tahsildar issued a Domicile Certificate dated 29.06.2013 certifying that respondent No.5 was a resident of Anadapuram village for the past 5 years and the was the subject matter of the appeal in RA No.38/2013-14 by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner after hearing both the parties rejected the appeal on 30.09.2013, which was the subject matter in RA No.10/2013-14 before the Deputy Commissioner, which was also dismissed on 28.07.2014. The Tahsildar who is a jurisdictional Authority, after considering the entire materials on record, came to the conclusion that respondent No.5 is the resident of Ananthapuram village for last 5 years. The same is confirmed by both the Authorities viz., Assistant commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and recorded the findings of fact that respondent No.5 is a resident of Ananthapuram village. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Section 16 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925, with regard to Wife's domicile during her marriage follows the domicile of her husband to determine the rights of the wife under the said Act and the same cannot applicable for allotment of dealership for distribution of LPG under RGGLV yogana. 14. 14. In the present case, the jurisdictional Authority namely, Tahsildar after holding the spot inspection, recorded the statements and drawn the mahazar, has recorded the finding that respondent No.5 is a resident of Ananthapuram village as on the date of the application. 15. In pursuance of notification issued by respondent No.4 for selection under RGGLV Scheme, the Tahsildar has issued a Domicile Certificate during the course of his official duty and presumption has to be drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The said certificate issued by the Tahsildar has been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner relying upon the Government notification made in DPAR 13 EGM, Bengaluru, dated 10.08.2007 which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner holding that both the Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner considering the entire materials on record have dismissed the appeal. When the Authorities exercised the power as per the Government notification and passed orders exercising the power under the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.5 is a permanent resident of Besur village and the authorities were not justified in granting the dealership in favour of respondent no.5 as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 16. In view of the above, petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by the Authorities and the Domicile Certificate issued in favour of respondent No.5. The same is in accordance with law and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 17. This Court while issuing notice to respondents directed to deposit litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- in the Registry. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited the same before this Court on 29.10.2014. Since this Court dismissed the writ petition; Registry is directed to refund the same to the petitioner on proper identification in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.