Nasiruddin Ahmad, aged about 49 years, s/o late Rezauddin Ahmad, r/o 66, Jhanda Chowk v. 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited through the Chief Area Manager, Indane Area Office
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 59 of 2022 Nasiruddin Ahmad, aged about 49 years, s/o late Rezauddin Ahmad, r/o 66, Jhanda Chowk, PO & PS-Ramgarh Cantt., District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand ……Appellant/Respondent No.3 Versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited through the Chief Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D), Pulsar Plaza, Line Tank Road, PO-GPO, Ranchi, PS-Ranchi, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Sales Officer, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D), Pulsar Plaza, Line Tank Road, PO- GPO, Ranchi, PS-Ranchi, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ………..Respondents/Respondents 3. Sunil Kumar, aged about 32 years, s/o Sukhsagar Prasad, r/o Kurkutta, PO-Religarha Pachhari, PS-Giddi-A, Patratu, District-Ramgarh, State-Jharkhand …….... Respondent/Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the Resp. Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, Advocate : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate --------------
Decision
O R D E R 29th August 2023 The writ petitioner was one of the applicants for award of L.P.G distributorship at Giddi (CT) in the district of Hazaribagh. He came to the writ Court in W.P(C) No.1869 of 2021 with the following prayers: (a) Writ especially in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent i.e. Respondent No.1 and 2 to hold forthwith an inquiry as per clause 27 (b) of grievance/compliant redress system mentioned in Brochure for selection of L.P.G distributorship-June 2017 of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. With respect to respondent no.3 namely Nasiruddin Ahmad who fraudulently deceivably and misrepresenting one Jamil Rain, R/o Religarha-Pachari to be his father-in-law and thereby showing his land situated at Giddi location to be owned being relative for show room has got allotment of L.P.G distributorship/dealership, whereas, as a matter of fact Jamil Rain has no son-in- law namely Nasiruddin Ahmad nor has any daughter even Taushik Nasir, nor his any daughter married to any person who is R/o Ramgarh District. (b) Also further prays for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to cancel forthwith the distributorship allotted to Respondent No. 3 after outcome of the inquiry report as well as on establishment of proof of distortion of facts, forgery in documents as well as of misrepresentation by him in obtaining distributorship of L.P.G from Indian Oil 2 L.P.A No59 of 2022 Corporation Ltd. (c) And, also prays for holding lottery/ draw afresh soon amongst the already selected and left over 9 Candidates/applicants including this Petitioner in view of sl. No. 20 of the Guidelines/instruction for L.P.G distributors contained in Brochure of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. which provides for holding fresh draw amongst the left over applicants if distributorship of selected candidate has been cancelled within one year of selection so that most eligible, suitable and valid candidate could cater the services of distribution of L.P.G to its consumers effectively, validly and proficiently. And/or For the issuance of any other writ(s), order (s)/direction (s) to Respondent as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case, which are being set forth herein below.” 2. The writ Court referring to the allegations of forgery committed and misrepresentation made by the allottee for securing L.P.G distributorship from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short, “IOCL”) has passed the following order: “2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent no.1-I.O.C.L through the Chief Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.), Ranchi on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 1 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 3 and on making due enquiry, if so required, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within two months from the date of filing of the representation.” 3. On a glance at the direction issued by the writ Court, we find that the IOCL has been directed to conduct an enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and then to take an informed decision in accordance with law. 4. At the outset, Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that without issuing a notice and without hearing the appellant the aforesaid direction has been passed by the writ Court. 5. In our opinion, the writ Court has issued a mandamus for which the foundational facts were not pleaded in the writ petition. The writ petitioner who lost the contest for the award of L.P.G distributorship could not have come to the writ Court with a suggestion for conducting a roving enquiry. Being an applicant all that he could have claimed was a fair opportunity to participate in the selection process; but against that he has no grievance. Now an unsuccessful candidate for the award of L.P.G 3 L.P.A No59 of 2022 distributorship cannot claim that he has a right in law to seek an inquiry and there is a corresponding duty on the respondents which they have failed to perform. Therefore, in the aforesaid factual background a proceeding for mandamus shall not lie. 6. In “Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif & Ors.” AIR 1962 SC 1210, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, “in order that mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to do something it must be shown that the statutes impose a legal duty and the appellant has a legal right under the statutes to enforce its performance”. 7. The case pleaded by the writ petitioner is that some fraud was committed and misrepresentation has been made by the allottee. In the face of such allegations the least that was required before passing of the aforesaid direction for conducting an enquiry is that, a reply affidavit should have been invited from the allottee. This is the basic requirement in a Court of law that the affected party must have an opportunity of hearing and to present his side of the story. A direction to conduct an enquiry would definitely have civil consequences and while so for this reason alone the writ Court’s order has become susceptible and, therefore, set aside. 8. L.P.A No.59 of 2022 is allowed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Sudhir/NAFR (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)