NAFR 1 - Yogesh Pathak S/o Shri Laxmi Sevak Pathak, aged about 31 years v. 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through General Manager, Department of Marketing, Indian Oil Bhawan
Case Details
Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO Date: 2025.04.08 10:57:41 +0530 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2722 of 2011 NAFR 1 - Yogesh Pathak S/o Shri Laxmi Sevak Pathak, aged about 31 years, Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur, C G, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through General Manager, Department of Marketing, Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Aliyavar Jang Marg, Bandra, East Mumbai 2 - Senior Area Manager, Indian Oll Corporation Limited, Indian Area Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, VIP Road, Telibandha, Post Ravigram, Raipur 3. Onkar Mourya, 5/0 Brahmanand Mourya, resident of Lormi, District Bilaspur. 4. Ku. Neelima Jyotishi, D/o Ramashankar Jyotishi, aged 36 years, resident of Ward No.7, House No.7, Tehsil and District Mandla, presently resident of Brahmanpara, Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, Bilaspur ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Dr. N.K. Shukla, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Bole, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate holding For Respondent No.3 For Respondent No.4 : : brief of Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- -2- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the allotment of LPG to the respondent no. 4 from the concerned respondent for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the allotment of dealership of LPG under the Scheme of Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distribution Scheme. 10.3 That, a proper enquiry may be initiated to probe into the irregularities committed in allotment of LPG dealership under the scheme. 10.4 That, dealership granted in favour of respondents No. 4 may kindly be set aside.” 2. The facts of the present case are that on 19.10.2009, an advertisement was issued for the grant of license under the Chhattisgarh Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Scheme for Lormi. The applications were invited from the actual residents of Lormi. Respondent No. 4 applied for the domicile certificate before the Tehsildar, Lormi and vide order dated 16.11.2009, the Tehsildar issued a domicile certificate of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as a residence certificate of Lormi. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Tehsildar under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code which was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Lormi and the certificate issued by the Tehsildar Lormi was cancelled vide order dated 27.07.2011. Against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur which was allowed vide order dated 03.07.2012. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, 3 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2018. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 4 is not a resident of Village Lormi. He would further submit that according to Clause 3 of the Advertisement for LPG Distribution Dealership, the candidate was required to be a resident of a particular village or city. He would further contend that according to the report submitted by Patwari, respondent No. 4 was shown a resident of Mandla as her name appears in the voter list of the year 2009. He would also contend that the domicile certificate was obtained by respondent No.4 using forged documents from the Court of Tehsildar. He would further submit that in the year 2009, respondent No. 4 was not residing in Village Lormi, therefore, she was not competent to participate in the bid. He would also submit that the petition may be allowed and the Letter Of Intent issued in favour of respondent No.4 may be canceled/quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel. They would submit that respondent No. 4 applied for the license under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Distribution Dealership, which was granted in the year 2009 on the basis of a domicile certificate submitted by her. It is also argued that the residence certificate was also issued by the Competent Authority. They would contend that respondent No.4 had left Mandla prior to 2009 but her name was not deleted from the voter list as no specific application was moved in this regard. They would argue -4- that the domicile certificate and residence certificate were issued by the Competent Authority i.e. Tehsildar in Revenue Case No. RN/02/R/B-121/289/2012. They would also submit that the relevant documents as required for the issuance of the domicile certificate were produced before the said authority and after verification of those documents, the domicile certificate and residence certificate were issued. They would also contend that the LPG Distribution Dealership was allotted to respondent No.4 in the year 2009 and since then, she is running it and the order of allotment has not been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. It is also submitted that earlier on two occasions, writ petitions were filed by the petitioners and those petitions were withdrawn without obtaining any liberty to file afresh. Therefore, the present petition, based on the same grounds, is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Admittedly, the LPG Distribution Dealership was granted to respondent No.4 in the year 2009 on the basis of a domicile certificate and residence certificate submitted by her. The residence certificate and domicile certificate were issued pursuant to a revenue case, registered in the Court of Tehsildar. It is not in dispute that the Tehsildar examined the fact that respondent No.4 was a resident of Village Lormi at the relevant time. 7. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have raised a specific objection that earlier W.P(C) No.3686 of 2010 was 5 withdrawn without obtaining the liberty to file afresh. The objection appears to be crucial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and Others,(1987) 1 SCC 5 held that if a petition is withdrawn without obtaining the liberty, a subsequent petition seeking a similar relief between the same parties would not be maintainable. It is also held that while a petition can be filed before the higher forum, it would not be maintainable before the same forum. The relevant paragraph 9 is reproduced herein below:- “9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision in Daryao's case (supra) is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdraw- al does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was fight in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however. make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of -6- an individual in which the petition- er prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental fight guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We however leave this question open.” 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 9. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge