Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23652 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Pradip Kumar Yadav Son Of Sri Indrajeet Yadav @ Indrajeet Yadav Resident Of Village And P.O. Lakari Nabiganj, P.S. Basantpur, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gases, Government Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi Through The Secretary 2. The Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gases, Government Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 3. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai Through The Chairman 4. The Chairman, The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai 5. The Senior Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. Regional Officer, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna 6. The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate, Siwan .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Mangalam For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. N. Hoda Khan Sc18 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 5 23-07-2013 Challenge in this application is to the advertisement dated 26.02.2012 published by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short “HPCL”) for appointment of Distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) at Lakari Nabiganj in the district of Siwan. The Distributorship was to be granted under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Distribution Scheme (for short “RGGLV”). By publishing the said notice/advertisement, the respondent called upon the intending candidates for filing their
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.23652 of 2012 (5) dt.23-07-2013 2 papers for appointment of the Distributor under RGGLV. Let it be recorded that prior thereto, an advertisement was issued on 17.10.2009 and pursuant thereto the selection of distributors for the said location could not be finalized. The petitioner has also sought quashing of letter dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure-8) issued by the Senior Regional Manager of the HPCL. The petitioner has sought a direction that the respondent HPCL should proceed with the previous advertisement to select Distributor in terms of paragraph 12.10 of the Brochure governing Selection instead of re-advertising the same.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent Corporation. Background facts are as under:- The respondent Corporation published an advertisement on 17.10.2009 whereby different locations were advertised for the purpose of selection of Distributors of those locations under RGGLV. Lakari Nabiganj falling in the district of Siwan was advertised as one of the locations and the intending candidates were called upon to submit their application forms. The petitioner and others submitted application form(s) under acknowledgement. The respondents informed the petitioner by a communication dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure-4) that on preliminary verification, Patna High Court CWJC No.23652 of 2012 (5) dt.23-07-2013 3 he was found ineligible for RGGLV. Petitioner was required to submit his representation thereagainst. The petitioner submitted his reply whereafter the respondent vide communication dated 10.05.2010 (Annexure-5) informed him to be present for draw of lots on 31.05.2010. The petitioner appeared on the said dates. The draw of lots was made and one Meera Kumari, wife of Amitabh Kumar was selected. Let it be recorded that alongwith Meera Kumari two other applicants including the petitioner was summoned for the said location. Several complaints were filed against Meera Kumari and she was declared ineligible by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that once the candidature of Meera Kumari has been cancelled, the respondents were obliged to hold draw of lots again from remaining qualified/eligible candidates as per the provisions contained in the Brochure. The respondents by communication dated 29.07.2011 informed that the location was not properly advertised inasmuch as there is no village by the name of Lakari Nabiganj and as such the respondent will come up with fresh advertisement with a proper revenue village soon. The petitioner submitted a representation disclosing that the said stand of the respondent is not correct. In the meanwhile, the respondents came out with the Patna High Court CWJC No.23652 of 2012 (5) dt.23-07-2013 4 impugned advertisement dated 26.02.2012 for diverse locations including Lakari Nabiganj in the district of Siwan which has been challenged in the writ petition. Mr. Mangalam learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent after having declared the selected candidate ineligible ought to have initiated a fresh draw of lots from the remaining qualified/eligible candidates to select the next candidate. In not doing so, the respondents have acted in a wholly arbitrary manner. It is next contended that the village Lakari Bigha does exist within Lakari Nabiganj in the district of Siwan yet the respondents have issued the impugned advertisement for the said location. Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that during field verification of successful candidates, it came to the notice of the respondent that there is no revenue village called Lakari Bigha in existence and as such the respondents decided to re-advertise the location with proper details including the revenue mouja. The petitioner was duly informed about the said stand of the respondent Corporation on 29.07.2011. At least two writ petitions were filed in this Court raising similar/identical issues with respect to another locations. This Court by order dated 07.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. Patna High Court CWJC No.23652 of 2012 (5) dt.23-07-2013 5 9670 of 2010 (Annexure-C) and the order dated 08.07.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5340 of 2011 (Annexure-D) approved the stand of the respondents in re-advertising the locations and thereby giving opportunity to all the aspirants to apply once again. It has also submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 26.02.2012, the petitioner has filed his application and the selection process is under way. Mr. Mangalam learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid stand of the respondent. He, however, submits that such application was filed without prejudice to his right to pursue the present application. The location advertised must be specific. It has to be either a town or a village. The respondents in the communication dated 29.07.2011 informed the petitioner that the advertised location was Lakari Bigha only which does not extend to the whole area of Lakari Nabiganj. A confusion had, therefore, arisen and the respondent decided to initiate a fresh selection process by issuing the advertisement dated 26.2.2012. If the respondents have any doubt with regard to the exact location then surely they can come out with a fresh advertisement giving out specific location. In a matter like this, no indefeasible right is created in a candidate merely by applying. No legal right of the petitioner as such has Patna High Court CWJC No.23652 of 2012 (5) dt.23-07-2013 6 been infringed by the said action of the respondent Corporation in re-issuing the advertisement with clearly specifying the location. The petitioner and all eligible persons shall have an opportunity to apply for consideration. In fact, the petitioner has already applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.02.2012 which fact is not in dispute. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate infringement of his any legal vested right justifying this Court to invoke its discretionary and extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. No cost. Pankaj/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)