Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.937 of 2013 ====================================================== Praveen Kumar Singh S/O Late Shiv Shankar Singh R/O Village- Arwan, P.O.+P.S.- Nagra, District- Chapra (Saran), Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through The Secretary Department Of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi 2. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai 3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing Division, Bihar State Office, Loknayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna 4. The Senior Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Eastern Region, Indane Area Office, Patna, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 5. The Chief Area Manager, Patna (AO) First Floor, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 6. The Assistant Manager (CSC), Patna (AO) First Floor, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 7. The Assistant Manager (F), Patna (AO) First Floor, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 4 29-08-2013 Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. K.D. Chatterjee for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short ‘Corporation’). Pursuant to an advertisement (Annexure-1) published by the respondent -IOCL for selection of distributor under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak ( for short ‘RGGLV’) at different locations. The petitioner finding himself eligible for location Nagra Arwa Rasulpur located within Nagra Block in the District of Saran became one of the applicants. He offered land appertaining to Khata no. 260, khesra no. 877 of the
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.937 of 2013 (4) dt.29-08-2013 Page 2 /7 specified dimension for the said distributorship. The application was acknowledged by the respondent-IOCL. After preliminary verification made by the respondent-IOCL the petitioner was served with a letter dated 17.9.12 (Annexure-4) issued by the Chief Area Manager (A.O.) of the respondent- IOCL whereby it was informed that the petitioner was not held eligible for the RGGLV as the land provided by the petitioner was neither in his own name nor in the name of any member constituting family unit of the petitioner. It was, however, stated therein that the petitioner, if so desired, may file his representation on the above. As per the pleadings, the petitioner submitted his representation(s) (Annexure-5 series) enclosing therewith the decree passed in Title Suit no. 152 of 2004. It was claimed therein that the petitioner, by virtue of the said decree, acquired title on part of the total area of land appertaining to khata no. 260, plot no. 877 to the extent of 16 kathas 15 dhurs. The petitioner was thereafter not called upon to participate in the draw of lots for selection of distributor under RGGLV. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent- IOCL. The petitioner has filed rejoinder thereto. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents by a communication dated 17.9.12 (Annexure-4) Patna High Court CWJC No.937 of 2013 (4) dt.29-08-2013 Page 3 /7 called upon the petitioner to submit representation against such cancellation of candidature of the petitioner and, as such, the respondents were obliged to consider the representations filed by the petitioner in the light of the said communication (Annexure-5 series). The respondents have not considered the said representation(s) which has vitiated the entire process taken thereafter by the respondents. It has next been contended that by virtue of the judgment and decree passed in Title Partition Suit no. 152 of 2004 the petitioner did acquire title and possession over portion of the land which was offered to the respondent- IOCL. It has been submitted that other documents showing title/possession have also been submitted by the petitioner which have not been considered.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent IOCL, on the other hand, submitted that as per notice inviting application the petitioner was required to submit proof of title and actual possession over the subject land failing which the application was liable to be rejected. Referring to the brochure, particularly, clause 11.1.2 thereof, it has been submitted that the respondents grant an opportunity to the applicant(s) to remove the deficiencies detected in verifying/processing the application(s) only to ensure that applications are not rejected on technical grounds. Such opportunity is granted to the applicants to remove Patna High Court CWJC No.937 of 2013 (4) dt.29-08-2013 Page 4 /7 the defects such as non submission of documents in support of statements made in the application, furnishment of photographs and/or signing the application at appropriate places if not signed. Filing of any further document cannot be permitted in view of the provisions contained in the brochure /manual governing selection of RGGLV as also the conditions spelt out in the notice inviting application. The application filed by the petitioner is Annexure R/2. It would appear therefrom that the petitioner gave out name of his father as the owner of the land. It would further appear that the father of the petitioner had died and that the petitioner was married. The rent receipt filed by the petitioner (Annexure R/4) stood in the name of the father. Being the married son the mother and other brothers of the petitioner shall not constitute the family unit. Even if the case of the petitioner based on the decree passed in Title Partition Suit no. 152 of 2004 is to be taken into account the claim of the petitioner is not improved/substantiated. As per the decree passed in Title ( Partition) Suit No. 152 of 2004 1/3rd of the total area of the land appertaining to Khata no.260, khesra no. 877 was allotted jointly to the petitioner, his brother and mother. He referred in this regard to the decree and the compromise which formed basis of the decree copies whereof have been enclosed as Annexure 5 series of the writ petition. If that be so, no relief can be granted to the Patna High Court CWJC No.937 of 2013 (4) dt.29-08-2013 Page 5 /7 petitioner. It appears the entire selection process has been challenged on the ground that the respondent- IOCL has not considered the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-5). Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate with reference to the brochure/guidelines under which such selection is made and/or the notice inviting application that any such representation could have been filed enabling the petitioner to file documents at subsequent stage to improve his case and the respondent -IOCL was obliged to consider the same. Even if the said contention of the petitioner is accepted argumenti causa I find that in the representation the petitioner had claimed that by virtue of the decree passed in Title Partition Suit no. 152/2004 the land came in the share of the petitioner. On perusal of the compromise application forming part of the decree it appears the petitioner along with his brother and mother was allotted 1/3 share in the total area of land comprised in khata no 260 plot no. 877. There is no controversy that the mother and brother of the petitioner will not constitute members of the family unit in terms of the relevant provisions of the brochure/guidelines. The land offered by the petitioner, therefore, did not stand in his name. The land rent receipts furnished by the petitioner records name of the father of the petitioner as the tenant. The petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.937 of 2013 (4) dt.29-08-2013 Page 6 /7 may have acquired title and interest in the subject land by virtue of documents placed by the petitioner but the requirement for grant of distributorship under RGGLV is that the land offered by the applicant should be in the name of the applicant/candidate supported by documents of possession. It is further seen that respondent IOCL was not obliged to consider any document furnished subsequent to the filing of the applicant. This Court in view of the aforesaid has no manner of doubt that even if the document furnished by the petitioner in response to the communication dated 17-09-2012 (Annexure 4) were considered the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be rejected in view of the relevant provisions contained in the brochure and the notice inviting application. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on land possession certificate issued by the Circle Officer has contended that the respondents should have accepted the title of the petitioner over the said land. The said document has been enclosed by the respondent as Annexure R/3. On perusal whereof, it appears that the land appertaining to khata no. 260 continued to be recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner. I have already held that father and mother of the petitioner shall not constitute the family unit of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner based on the said document is, therefore, not sustainable in law. Patna High Court CWJC No.937 of 2013 (4) dt.29-08-2013 Page 7 /7 For the reasons noted above, this Court finds no merit in the application. Dismissed. No order as to cost(s). (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-