Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 171 (GAU)

Jitumani Das v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2019-02-06

KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2019
ORDER : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 4 and 5 and Mr. Sheeladitya for the private respondent No. 6. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have projected that the private respondent No. 6 had applied for LPG distribution by suppressing and misrepresenting facts and by providing incorrect or false documents towards his eligibility. Hence, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to set aside the LOI dated 28.10.2015, issued by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in the name of the respondent No. 6 and further prayed for directing the respondent No. 3 to inquire into the anomalies of the respondent No. 6 having furnished a fake OBC certificate while submitting his application for LPG distribution 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the application for LPG distributorship, the private respondent No. 6 had projected that he was an OBC category person and he had declared himself to be a single person with regard to his marital status. Heavily relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, it is submitted that the Circle Officer, Azara Revenue Circle, Kamrup (M) district had submitted an inquiry report to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati bearing No. ARC. 3/2013/667 dated 20.05.2016 wherein it was mentioned that he had conducted field visit and interacted with different people of Gorol and Kuhabori areas and Gaonburha of village Gorol (Hamlet: Kuhabori) and village Dharapur with regard to the OBC certificate granted to Sri Sailendra Baruah (respondent No. 6) and the statements of both the Gaonburhas were recorded and that they had corroborated that the respondent No. 6 was not from Ahom Community and was not an OBC person and therefore, it was opined that as the respondent No. 6 did not belong to Ahom Community, and that the OBC certificate issued to the respondent No. 6 as a person from Ahom Community is false. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the Birth certificate of the daughter of the respondent No. 6 to project that as a child was born to respondent No. 6, the declaration of the martial status of the respondent No. 6 to be single was false. 5. It is also submitted that as per the terms of the LOI, if a false statement comes to light of the IOCL authorities, they were bound to cancel the LOI and in the present case, the evidence of false declaration by the respondent No. 6 was brought to the notice of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, but they had not taken any action. Hence, it is submitted that the present writ petition is maintainable. 6. The learned Standing counsel for the IOCL has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to project that prior to the issuance of the LOI by letter dated 06.04.2015, the IOCL authorities had caused verification of caste certificate from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, by his letter No. KAV-8/2015/28/209 dated 12.05.2015, had informed that the caste certificate issued to the respondent No. 6 vide No. 3836 dated 30.03.2015 was issued from the Office and a caste verification report had been submitted by the Secretary, All Assam OBC Association, Guwahati wherein it was stated that the OBC Certificate was genuine and, as such, it is submitted that having done the field verification and finding the caste certificate and other declaration of the respondent No. 6 to be genuine, the LOI was issued in favour of the respondent No. 6. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition, a preliminary objection was raised as regard locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the present writ petition on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had applied for LPG distributorship or they were otherwise qualified to bid for their selection as LPG distribution. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners could not be said to be a legally aggrieved person and that as the petitioners had no legal right, they had not suffered any legal injury and therefore, by relying on the ratio laid down in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners could not be said to be a legally aggrieved person and that as the petitioners had no legal right, they had not suffered any legal injury and therefore, by relying on the ratio laid down in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 465 , it is submitted that unless the petitioners can show that they had suffered any legal injury, the petitioners, being a rank outsider, cannot be permitted to challenge the LOI of the respondent No. 6. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioners, being third persons, had no concern with the LOI allotted to the petitioner and that they cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. On merit, it is submitted that ordinarily only the parents or the appointed legal guardians could have lawfully obtained the copy of birth certificate of the girl child of the respondent No. 6, but in the present case in hand the petitioners have been able to procure the birth certificate of the girl child of the respondent No. 6 and moreover, it is submitted that the stand taken by the respondent No. 6 was that he was in a live-in relationship at that point of time because he was not legally married and therefore, the declaration that he was a single person could not be disbelieved. 8. It is further submitted that in the inquiry report on which the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) was heavily relying upon, no opinion has been expressed that the OBC certificate issued to the respondent No. 6 was fake. It is also submitted that as there is nothing on record to show that the OBC certificate of the respondent No. 6 had been cancelled, as such, it is not open for the petitioners to claim that the respondent No. 6 had no right flowing from the said OBC certificate. 9. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the IOCL authorities had written to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by their letter dated 06.04.2013 for verification of the caste certificate of the respondent No. 6 and accordingly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) district, had confirmed by the letter dated 12.05.2016 that the caste certificate of respondent No. 6 was genuine. Under such circumstances, when the present writ petition was filed on 29.06.2016, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (respondent No. 3) had not disclosed in his affidavit-in opposition as to what prompted him to issue letter dated 04.05.2016 and to cause an inquiry to be made in the matter of the OBC certificate granted to the respondent No. 6. 10. It is further seen that though the Circle Officer, Azara Revenue Circle, had taken much pain to make local inquiry and collected information from different people including Gaonburha of 2(two) villages, it is not known why he did not permit the respondent No. 6 to participate in the inquiry or why he did not confront the respondent No. 6 on the basis of statements made by these persons. Moreover, no competent authority including the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati had declared the OBC certificate issued by his Office in favour of the respondent No. 6 to be fake or false and that the said OBC certificate has neither been recalled nor cancelled. Moreover, the statements made by the respondent No. 6 that he was unmarried at the relevant point of time, has not been controverted by producing any admissible evidence on record. 11. It would be relevant to reproduce para 9 & 23 of the judgment rendered in the case of: of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) is quoted below: "9. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC 1289 , a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons. 23. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623 , held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite parry should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 ; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 ; M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 708 ; New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Ann, AIR 2008 SC 876 ; Rachpal Singh & Ors. v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2448 ; Biecco Lawrie & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 142 ; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 )." 12. Therefore, on applying the ratio laid down in the above case in the present case in hand, it is seen that the petitioners have not produced any materials to show that how they were qualified to be one of the applicants for the LPG distributorship and therefore, no legal right of the petitioners has been infringed and resultantly, the petitioners are not found to have suffered any legal injury. 13. Therefore, the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of being "personally aggrieved" so as to maintain the present writ petition. Hence, this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioners do not have the locus standi to file and to maintain this present writ petition. Moreover, being noticed that the OBC certificate granted to the respondent No. 6 is still in force, even on merit, there is no cause of action for the present writ petition. 14. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner. Tribal (1994) 6 SCC 241 , has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has streamlined the procedure for issuance of social status certificates and a direction was also passed for constitution of a scrutiny committee by each State and therefore, he submits that the petitioners be granted liberty to approach the said authority, if so advised. In connection with the said prayer, if the law permits the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority, this Court is of the view that no leave is required to move such authority and therefore, whether the petitioners want to avail any remedy as may be available to them is within their choice, and no liberty from this Court is warranted. 15. 15. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.