Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2069 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Neeraj Kumar Thakur S/O Sri Dhirendra Thakur R/O Village- Jajwara, Post- Jajuar, P.S.- Katra, District- Muzaffarpur Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2. The Chief Area Manager Indane Area Office, Patna, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Md), First Floor Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.D. Chatterji, Senior Advocate Mr. Amlesh Kumar Varma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 3 20-02-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the letter dated 18.1.2013, by which the petitioner has been informed that he has not been found to be eligible for LPG Distributorship, as he does not have own or leased land for the Godown and Showroom in the advertised location and for consequential directions or to give a chance to the petitioner to cure the defect in the application. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and are not in dispute. The petitioner had applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 18.5.2012 for appointment of a dealer of LPG
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.2069 of 2013 (3) dt.20-02-2013 2 for location Jajwara, District- Muzaffarpur. However, the application/ form of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner does not have own or leased land for the Godown and Showroom in the advertised location. It is the admitted position, as is also clear from the application form brought by the respondent Corporation as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, that the petitioner has shown three plots of land within the location area in which the Jamabandi was existing in the name of the grand father and grand mother of the petitioner and the land had dimension above the requirement of 26.15 meters. However, the petitioner had also shown for the showroom two plots of land of which the Jamabandi was in the name of his grand mother which was also within the location and both the plots had dimensions as required in the advertisement.
Legal Reasoning
This Court in several decisions has already held that no change can be permitted in the application form by one of the candidates whereas the relief sought in the present matter is for change in the application form and not for rectification of deficiency. I do not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. V.P.Sinha/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land possession certificate with respect to two of the plots of land has been issued in the name of the petitioner and he is also paying the rent for the same and those lands have come in his share after partition of the family properties. Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the land for showroom being recorded in the name of the grand mother of the petitioner and the father of the petitioner being alive he can, in no case, be considered as a person Patna High Court CWJC No.2069 of 2013 (3) dt.20-02-2013 3 who is a joint owner or co-sharer of the land in question as the land would devolve upon the father of the petitioner by inheritance in his individual and separate capacity and not as that of the joint family and thus the petitioner is not eligible for the leased land which he has shown for the proposed showroom. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to meet the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation which is based upon sound legal basis as to how the petitioner would be a joint owner of the land recorded in the name of his late grand mother when his father is alive. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a number of deficiencies have been permitted to be removed in the case of other persons and, therefore, the petitioner should also be allowed to remove the deficiency by showing one of the land which was recorded in the name of his grand father as also grand mother of which he is a joint owner and co-sharer as member of the joint family. Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation submits that the present matter is not of rectification of any deficiency found in the application. It is stated that the description of deficiencies may not be exhaustive as per Annexure-B itself but any rectification sought should be with respect to a deficiency whereas the petitioner is not seeking to remove the deficiency in Patna High Court CWJC No.2069 of 2013 (3) dt.20-02-2013 4 the application form rather to change the land shown by him for the showroom which is not a deficiency and the same is not permissible. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the advertisement itself and the brochure make it clear that more than one plot the land may be shown but the purpose of the same is that any of those plots may be within the eligible criteria; however there is no such provision that the description of the land may be changed as and when the petitioner wants to do so and thus the rejection of the application form of the petitioner was rightly done as it is not a part of the duty of the respondents to keep on giving opportunity to the applicants to make changes as and when they wish in the lands, etc. that they have not shown in their application form. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsels for the parties, I find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner can claim to rectify any deficiency that may be found in the application but the change of plot of land cannot be considered a deficiency, rather it would amount to changing the application itself. The mere provision for removal of deficiency indicates that the respondents are only required to look into the application and allow any rectification which does not go Patna High Court CWJC No.2069 of 2013 (3) dt.20-02-2013 5 to the root of the matter if it is found to be missing. Here it is not a case of any detail being missing from the application, rather the petitioner has clearly mentioned the two plots of land as belonging to him for the purpose of showroom but the same being in the name of his grand mother he does not come within the eligibility criteria of being a joint holder or co-sharer of the land in question. Thus, the application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. If the petitioner has been negligent in the filling up of his application form when he had other pieces of land which would have fulfilled the criteria for the showroom then it was for him to have provided the same and it is not for the respondent Corporation to keep on giving opportunity after opportunity to all the applicants to ultimately show a piece of land either as a joint owner or a co- sharer of the land.