Pranita Kumari, aged about 29 years, wife of Shankar Paswan, resident of village –Mahthadih v. 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3194 of 2018 Pranita Kumari, aged about 29 years, wife of Shankar Paswan, resident of village –Mahthadih, P.O.+P.S. –Domchanch, District - Koderma. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi -110001, P.O. –G.P.O., P.S. –Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), Indane Area Office, 2nd Floor, Pulsar Plaza, Line Tank Road (Jail Road), Ranchi, P.O. –G.P.O., P.S. –Kotwali, District –Ranchi. …. Respondents P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the Notice No. 11, the copy of which has been kept at annexure-5 for re-draw for selection of LPG Distributors for the location Katia, Category –SC(W), District – Koderma, whereby and where under the respondent no.2 decided to re-draw of selection of LPG Distributors without assigning any reason and without including the name of the petitioner though earlier notice for the Distributor of LPG has been published on W.P. (C) No.3194 of 2018 1 14.08.2017 in which the petitioner has applied for and her name was mentioned in the list of applicants found eligible for draw of selection of LPG Distributors published. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner in response to an advertisement for appointment of LPG Distributorship, applied for the Distributorship of the said Katia location. The petitioner became successful in the draw of lots and deposited required demand draft and documents but suddenly the respondents went for re-draw for selection of the LGP Distributor at Katia. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said re-draw for selection of the LPG Distributor is illegal as the petitioner has been excluded from the same illegally. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition be allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that as on field verification, it was found that the land offered by the petitioner is not having a registered lease deed and she was having a notarized lease deed in respect of the land offered by her for the said Distributorship, so the land offered by the petitioner was not as per the terms and conditions of the selection. The petitioner was asked to give an alternative land but the petitioner refused to provide any alternative land, therefore, as per Clause 1(w) of the Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection for LPG Distributors, 2017, as the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria for selection, hence her candidature has been rejected vide letter dated 21.06.2018, copy of W.P. (C) No.3194 of 2018 2 which has been kept at annexure-R/6 of the counter affidavit dated 01.08.2018. 6. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs. and Others v. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs. and Others, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 756, para -22 of which reads as under:- the challenging order without It is a settled legal proposition that challenge to “22. consequential basic order/statutory provision on the basis of which the order has been passed cannot be entertained. Therefore, it is a legal obligation on the part of the party to challenge the basic order and only if the same is found to be wrong, consequential order may be examined (vide P. Chitharanja Menon v. A. Balakrishnan [(1977) 3 SCC 255 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 378 : AIR 1977 SC 1720] ; H.V. Pardasani v. Union of India [(1985) 2 SCC 468 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 482 : AIR 1985 SC 781] ; and Govt. of Maharashtra v. Deokar’s Distillery [(2003) 5 SCC 669 : AIR 2003 SC 1216] ).” (Emphasis supplied) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the principle of law is well settled that challenge to consequential orders without challenging the basic order/statutory provision on the basis of which the order has been passed cannot be entertained. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that even though the petitioner is well aware about the order rejecting her candidature dated 21.06.2018, she has not challenged the same because there is no illegality in the same, hence it is submitted that this writ petitioner suppressing the material facts of cancellation of the candidature of petitioner for the distributorship; is a frivolous and vexatious one, hence the same be dismissed. W.P. (C) No.3194 of 2018 3 8. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that though in the supplementary counter affidavit, it has been categorically mentioned that the Distributorship has been awarded to Smt. Sumitra Kumari but she has not been impleaded as a party and behind her back, no adverse orders can be passed which will be detrimental to the interest of the said Sumitra Kumari. It is lastly submitted that thus this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in view of the settled principle of law that it is a legal obligation on the part of a party to challenge the basic order and only if the same is found to be wrong, the consequential order is may be examined and as in this case, undisputedly, the basic order is the Letter Dated 21.06.2018 by which the candidature of the petitioner for the said distributorship, has been rejected but the petitioner has not challenged the same and suppressing the material facts has filed
Decision
the writ petition only for the consequential actions; that too without impleading Sumitra Kumari has party respondent, in whose favour the said distributorship claimed by the petitioner, has already been allotted more so when the materials in the court to suggest that the petitioner had the knowledge of both these incidents that is cancellation of candidature of the petitioner for the said distributorship and allotment of said distributorship to Sumitra W.P. (C) No.3194 of 2018 4 Kumari. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition being devoid of any merit is liable to dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 9th May, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) W.P. (C) No.3194 of 2018 5