IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2832 of 2011
----------
Sudish Kumar Singh, son of Sri Bageshwar Singh, resident of village
Bhorey, P.S. Bhorey, District Gopalganj
…. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through the Secretary Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman Score Complex
Lodi Road, New Delhi-3.
3. The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil
Bhawan, Eastern Region-2, Gorea Hat Road (South Dhakurai),
Kolkatta-700068.
4. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.-2, Gorea Hat Road
(South Dhakurai), Kolkatta-700068.
5. The Dept-General Manager, B.S.O. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Marketing Division Eastern, Chouk, Patna-800001.
6. The Chief Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Marketing Division. Shashi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna
7. The Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Marketing Division, Eastern Region, Patna.
8. The Sr. Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.( Marketing
Division ), Eastern Region, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna.
…. Respondents
——–
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyendra Rai, Advocate
For the Respondents: M/s Anil Kumar Sinha and Amlesh Kumar
Verma, Advocates.
——-
05/ 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging letter dated 06.01.2011, issued by the Senior Area
Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), Patna
(respondent no.8), by which the candidature of the petitioner for grant
of distributorship of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak ( hereinafter
referred to as `RGGLV’ for the sake of brevity ) of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. at Mauza Bhorey in the district of Gopalganj was
cancelled and for other ancillary reliefs.
-2-
3. The fact of the case is that on 17.06.2009 (Annexure
6) an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper for
awarding RGGLV at several places including Mauza Bhorey. In
response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied on
21.11.2009 (Annexure 7). He offered two lands for the said purpose,
the first land being plot no.15 of khata no.22, measuring 36 meters x
36 meters of Mauza and P.O. Bhorey in the district of Gopalganj and
the second land being plot no. 960 of khata no. 132 measuring 30
meters x 15 meters situated in Mauza and P.O. Bhorey in the district
of Gopalganj.
4. Subsequently the petitioner sent a letter to the
respondents on 21.06.2010 (Annexure 3) stating that due to clerical
and typographical error, plot no.15 of khata no. 22 has been given in
the first option but the said land is not situated in Mauza Bhorey,
rather in its place the petitioner intended to offer another plot bearing
no. 94 of khata no. 58 of Mauza Bhorey in the district of Gopalganj.
Thereafter, the impugned letter dated 06.01.2011 (Annexure 4) was
issued by respondent-Corporation rejecting the candidature of the
petitioner on the ground that the first land offered for godown in the
application is not in the advertised location of Bhorey, rather the said
land offered is in Khadai and that the second land offered for godown
is not suitable as the offered plot is less than the required minimum
dimension as given in the advertisement.
5. From the arguments of learned counsel the parties
and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that it was
-3-
specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the land required was
for Mauza Bhorey and the minimum area for the land was 24 meters x
20 meters i.e. 480 squire meters. Out of the said two lands offered by
the petitioner, one land was situated in Mauza Bhorey, but its
measurement was 30 meters x 15 meters i.e. 450 squire meters, which
was obviously less than the area required and hence the authorities
rightly found that the said plot was not suitable for the purpose . So far
the first land mentioned in his application dated 21.06.2010, namely,
plot no.15 of khata no. 22, measuring 36 meters x 36 meters equal to
1296 squire meters, is concerned, , the petitioner had himself admitted
that the said plot was not situated in Mauza Bhorey, rather another
land of the petitioner was situated in Mauza Bhorey.
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
authorities rightly came to the conclusion that none of the plots offered
by the petitioner was as per the specification given in the
advertisement and hence his candidature was rightly rejected by the
authorities concerned.
7. This Court does not find any merit in this writ
petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)