Letters Patent Appeal No. 1161 of 2012 · Patna High Court · 2012
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1161 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12104 of 2010 ====================================================== Smt. Babita Singh, Widow of Late Dharmendra Kumar Singh, resident of village Kunjbanna, P.O. & P.S. Pirpainty, District Bhagalpur, Presently residing at T/55, Separate Quarter Circular Road, Danapur Cantt., District – Patna. …. ……Respondent no. 6 in the writ/Appellant Versus 1. Nirmal Kumar Choubey, S/O Late Sahdeo Prasad Choubey, R/O T.N. Singh Lane, Manik Sarker (Bangali Tola), P.O.- Bhagalpur City, Police Station- Adampur in the Town and District of Bhagalpur. … Petitioner/Respondent 2. The Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. 3. The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (MD), Indane Area Office, Patna Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. 4. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (MD), Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna-800001. 5. The Deputy General Manager L.P.G., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Orissa and Others; [(2007) 14 SCC 517]; and of this Court in the matters of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Raj 4 Patna High Court LPA No.1161 of 2012 (15) dt. 18-04-2013 4 / 5 Kumar Jha & Ors.; [2012(2) PLJR 783]; and unreported judgment of this Bench in the matter of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Smt. Sandhya Prasad (L.P.A. No. 51 of 2012 arising from CWJC No. 14205 of 2010 decided on 24th July 2012]. The question is whether the application made by the appellant was complete in all respects or were there any infirmities which rendered the application invalid, liable to be rejected. Copy
Arguments
Mr. Jitender Singh, Sr. Advocate. Ms. Namrata Mishra & Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocates For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G. 1. Mr. Diwaker Upadhya, Mr. R. K. Choubey & Mr. Rabindra Nath Choubey, Advocates. For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma & Mr. Shakib Ayaz, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1161 of 2012 (15) dt. 18-04-2013 2 / 5 C.A.V. Judgment (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 15 18-04-2013 This Appeal, preferred by the respondent no. 6 under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, arises from the judgment and order dated 7th May 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 12104 of 2010. The matter at dispute in this highly contested Appeal is the award of distributorship of L.P.G. Cylinders for Kahalgaon, District-Bhagalpur by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) to the appellant in the Defence category. Pursuant to the advertisement published on 17th October 2007, the respondent no. 1-the writ petitioner and some others applied for the distributorship of L.P.G. Cylinders at Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur. After processing the applications received by the Corporation, the Corporation published the result on 29th May 2009. One Om Prakash Sahni topped the list, whereas the appellant was at No. 2 and the writ petitioner was at No. 3. The petitioner had no dispute in respect of the placement of Om Prakash Sahni at No. 1 on the top of the merit list. However, the said Om Prakash Sahni did not accept the distributorship. The distributorship, therefore, automatically fell upon the appellant. The writ petitioner having learnt that the appellant had been selected for the distributorship, he objected to her placement at Sl. No. 2 on the merit list. According to the writ petitioner, the application made by the appellant was not in consonance with the advertisement and the brochure for L.P.G. distributorship published in June 2007. As the Corporation failed to respond to the objection raised by the writ petitioner, he approached this 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1161 of 2012 (15) dt. 18-04-2013 3 / 5 Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 12104 of 2010. Pending the petition, the appellant was given a Letter of Intent and later on 29th April 2011 she has also been appointed as distributor at Kahalgaon. According to the writ petitioner, the first ranker Om Prakash Sahni was a dummy candidate and that the endeavour was to surreptitiously award the distributorship to the appellant as the second ranker. The appellant was made undue favour. The application of the appellant was not complete and her application was liable to be rejected as per the condition mentioned in the brochure and the advertisement. The petition was contested by the appellant. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the selection of the appellant and the Letter of Intent and the appointment order issued to her. Therefore, this Appeal. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the action of the Corporation is neither arbitrary nor mala fide; nor it is apposed to the public interest. The action of the Corporation, therefore, ought to be upheld by this Court. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the respondent-writ petitioner. He has contested the Appeal. In support of their submissions, the learned advocates have relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors. ;[(2000) 2 SCC 617]; and of Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Decision
of the application is produced on the records of the writ petition at Annexure-5. The learned single Judge has noticed that the appellant, having said in Clause 13B that she owned the land for show-room in her own name and that she had a clear title over the land, she failed to give required particulars in Clause 13B1. The infirmity was fatal and that her application could not have been considered as a valid application. We entirely agree with the learned single Judge. Besides, though it is not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge, we have noticed one more infirmity which also would render the application invalid. In Clause 17 of the application, the appellant was required to give an undertaking in the terms stated therein. The appellant has not signed the said undertaking. In other words, the application made by the appellant was rendered invalid not only because she did not furnish the particulars of the land owned by her in Clause 13B1 of the application, but also because she failed to give undertaking in terms of Clause 17 of the application. Both the infirmities individually being fatal to the application, her application ought not have been considered by the Corporation. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the Corporation did do undue favour to the appellant by overlooking fatal infirmities in 5 Patna High Court LPA No.1161 of 2012 (15) dt. 18-04-2013 5 / 5 her application and in treating her application as valid. We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J I agree. Sujit/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)