Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 437 (JHR)

Harendra Prasad Gond v. Union of India

2021-06-14

S.N.PATHAK

body2021
JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation to immediately grant the petitioner dealership / distributionship of LPG of Jamshedpur (Mango), East Singhbhum as the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Siwan has duly issued the caste certificate dated 20.06.2007 in favour of the petitioner, wherein it is clearly specified that the petitioner belongs to Gond community and therefore, he is a Schedule Tribe. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation to immediately remove Anand Bopai-respondent No.8 from LPG dealer/distributor of Jamshedpur (Mango), East Singhbhum. Further, prayer has been made to hold and declare that the petitioner is legally entitled for obtaining LPG dealership from respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation as he was successfully selected and put at serial No.1 in the merit list on 07.01.2002 in an interview conducted by respondent-Dealer Selection Board. Further, prayer has been made to hold and declare that as the petitioner is declared by the Competent Authority as a member of 'Gond Community' within Schedule Tribe, he has got legal right to obtain LPG Dealership/ Distributionship. Further, prayer has been made to hold and declare that the complaint of Anand Bopai-respondent No.8 to respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation that petitioner is not a member of 'Schedule Tribe' was wholly false, frivolous, baseless and motivated, which unnecessarily victimized and harassed the petitioner and deprived him of the privilege of obtaining LPG dealership. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An advertisement was published in the daily newspaper 'Aaj Patna" dated 24.08.2000 at the instance of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (respondent No.2), inviting applications for grant of LPG distributionship for several places in the State of Bihar including Jamshedpur (Mango), East Singhbhum, however, the said distribtionship for Jamshedpur (Mango) was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes and last date for making application was 12.10.2000. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied within time for grant of LPG Distributionship of Jamshedpur (Mango), East Singhbhum and also enclosed the caste certificate issued vide Letter No.1489 dated 19.12.1998. Thereafter, on 07.01.2002, an interview was conducted and a merit list of three persons was prepared in which the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.1. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied within time for grant of LPG Distributionship of Jamshedpur (Mango), East Singhbhum and also enclosed the caste certificate issued vide Letter No.1489 dated 19.12.1998. Thereafter, on 07.01.2002, an interview was conducted and a merit list of three persons was prepared in which the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.1. However, the petitioner was shocked to learn from the letter dated 24.01.2002 issued by the Dealer Selection Board, Jamshedpur that Shri Anand Boipai (respondent No.8) has made a complaint, alleging therein that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and is 'Sahu' by caste. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa vide Memo No.543 dated 02.03.2003 cancelled the caste certificate dated 19.12.1998 of the petitioner on the basis of the Enquiry Report of Sub-Divisional Officer bearing Letter No. 101 dated 04.02.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No. 2372 of 2002 before this Hon'ble Court, challenging the order of cancellation dated 02.03.2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.05.2002 with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, enclosing the relevant evidence in support of his claim of being a member of Scheduled Tribe and this Hon'ble Court was further pleased to observe that 'further, if any selection is made by the Dealer Selection Board, it will be subject to the decision as may be taken by the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum'. 3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, enclosing the order passed by this Hon'ble Court and the documents relied upon by him. But, as the respondents were sitting tight over the matter, the petitioner filed a contempt application being Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 989 of 2002, however during the pendency of the same, the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 18.11.2002 directed the petitioner to take necessary steps to obtain caste certificate from the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Siwan. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2002, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 519/2004 before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 08.04.2004 dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2002, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 519/2004 before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 08.04.2004 dismissed the said writ petition. It is further the case of the petitioner that the said order dated 08.04.2004 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Division Bench by filing LPA No.286/ 2004, which was also dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2004. Against the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by filing a S.L.P. being SLP (Civil ) No. 21507 of 2004, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2004. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the appropriate authority i.e. Deputy Commissoner, Siwan (respondent No.7) for obtaining his caste certificate. The Deputy Commissioner, Siwan issued Caste Certificate in favour of the petitioner vide certificate dated 20.06.2007 specifying that in view of Memo No. 695 dated 28.02.2007 of Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, the petitioner belongs to 'Gond' Community, which comes within Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, the petitioner vide letter dated 04.07.2007, intimated Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan that Deputy Commissioner, Siwan has duly issued caste certificate in his favour, specifying that he belongs to Gond Community, which comes within Scheduled Tribe. But the respondents are sitting tight over the matter, hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 5. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected and put at Sr. No.1 for dealership of LPG for Jamshedpur (Mango), East Singhbhum, but deprived from getting the said dealership due to laches on the part of the respondents. The petitioner is entitled for obtaining LPG dealership from respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. inasmuch as the petitioner has duly obtained his caste certificate from Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Siwan. The cancellation of his candidature/dealership by the respondent No.5, on the frivolous complaint of respondent No.8 is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. He further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court, Deputy Commissioner after enquiry has issued Schedule Tribe Certificate to the petitioner. The cancellation of his candidature/dealership by the respondent No.5, on the frivolous complaint of respondent No.8 is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. He further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court, Deputy Commissioner after enquiry has issued Schedule Tribe Certificate to the petitioner. The respondent No.8 was at 2nd position in the merit list and he made a forged complaint against the petitioner to obtain the dealership of LPG in Jamshedpur (Mango), East Singhbhum and when, it is held that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Category, petitioner is entitled for the said dealership in place of respondent No.8 as he was first in the merit list. 6. Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel for the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vehemently opposed the contention of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and submitted that dealership of LPG for Jamshedpur (Mango) East Singhbhum was allotted to respondent No.8 in the year, 2004 itself and after lapse of four years, this writ petition has been filed. He further submitted that after following the due procedure of law, distributorship in question was granted to respondent No.8, which was commissioned on 16.09.2004 itself and as such, validity of panel ceased to exist. The LPG agency is in the nature of public utility service and as such, the respondent-Corporation could not have waited indefinitely for the petitioner to obtain a caste certificate, however; sufficient time has been granted to him from the date of passing of the order in the writ petition i.e. 14.05.2002 and lasting the dealership was commissioned only on 16.09.2004. 7. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No.8. However, counter-affidavit has been filed. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that in the advertisement itself, it was clearly mentioned that the person, who are local resident of the Revenue District of East Singhbhum and West Singhbhum are eligible for the LPG dealership of Mango area and as the caste certificate of the petitioner is issued by the District Magistrate, Siwan which shows him to be local resident of District of Siwan and as such, he is not eligible for dealership. The petitioner applied for dealership on the basis of caste certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, which was subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner and as such, rightly the dealership of LPG of Mango area has been alloted to me. 8. The petitioner applied for dealership on the basis of caste certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, which was subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner and as such, rightly the dealership of LPG of Mango area has been alloted to me. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.2372 of 2002, challenging the order of cancellation dated 02.03.2002, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.05.2002. In view of the direction of this Court, the petitioner filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum and thereafter, vide order dated 18.11.2002, the petitioner was directed to take necessary steps to obtain caste certificate from the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Siwan. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner also preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.519 of 2004, which was dismissed and the said order has been affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Siwan for obtaining case certificate which was issued to him on 20.06.2007, mentioning therein that he belongs to Gond Community, which comes within Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, no orders were passed regarding grant of dealership of LPG of Mango Area in his favour, he approached this Court in the year, 2008 by preferring instant writ petition. In the meantime, almost four years passed and the LPG dealership of Mango Area was allotted to respondent No.8 in the year, 2004 itself. The said allotment of respondent No.8 was never challenged by the petitioner in earlier writ petitions rather the petitioner was aggrieved by the cancellation of his allotment due to the complaint of respondent No.8 regarding proper caste certificate and moment he obtained caste certificate from Deputy Commissioner, Siwan, he rushed to the authorities for cancellation of dealership of respondent No.8 and allotment of the said dealership to present petitioner. The similar issue fell for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 297 , it has been held thus: 20. The 5th respondent did not acquire an indefeasible right. He was selected by the Oil Selection Board. The said selection was subsequently cancelled and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the appellant in May 2004. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 297 , it has been held thus: 20. The 5th respondent did not acquire an indefeasible right. He was selected by the Oil Selection Board. The said selection was subsequently cancelled and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the appellant in May 2004. It was not questioned immediately after issuance of the letter of intent in favour of appellant in May 2004. In his writ application, the 5th respondent did not question the grant of dealership in favour of the appellant. He was afforded an opportunity to amend the writ petition. He filed such an application only after 16 months. However, the writ petition itself was withdrawn and only in October 2006, the present writ application was filed. From the facts as noticed hereinbefore, there can, therefore, be no doubt that from May 2004 to October 2006, the respondent did not take any step to challenge insurance of the letter of intent granting dealership in favour of appellant. 21. Considering the fact that starting of a business in LPG dealership requires a huge investment and infrastructure therefor is required to be provided and a large number of employees are to be appointed therefor, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in not taking these factors into consideration in proper perspective. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. 9. From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner has filed this writ petition after four years from the date of allotment of LPG dealership in favour of respondent No.7 and he has never made/added prayer for cancellation of dealership granted in favour of the respondent No.8 neither the court had passed order not to grant dealership to other eligible person. The LPG agency is in the nature of public utility service and as such, the respondent-Corporation has rightly allotted the dealership to waitlisted candidate. The petitioner after obtaining caste certificate approached this Court as well as respondent-authorities for allotment of dealership to him, which is not acceptable to this Court as the petitioner did not acquire a indefeasible right for grant of dealership and the same could not have been reserved for four years till the petitioner gets a caste certificate in his favour. The petitioner after obtaining caste certificate approached this Court as well as respondent-authorities for allotment of dealership to him, which is not acceptable to this Court as the petitioner did not acquire a indefeasible right for grant of dealership and the same could not have been reserved for four years till the petitioner gets a caste certificate in his favour. The respondent-Petroleum Corporation cannot be said to be in fault in granting the dealership of LPG to respondent No.8, who was at second position in the merit list fulfilling all the eligibility criteria. There is no merit in the instant case. 10. Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed.