IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.142 of 2010
ANIL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI DASHRATH SINGH R/O
VILLAGE- DHAURI GOPAL, P.O MADARPUR, P.S MASHRAKH,
DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA. . . . PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
Versus
1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH THE
GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE AT G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG
MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION,
HEAD OFFICE AT G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA
(EAST), MUMBAI- 400051.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER.
THE BIHAR STATE OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
5th FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK
BUNGALOW CHOWK, PATNA
4. THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (MARKETING DIVISION),
EASTERN REGION, INDANE AREA OFFICE, 1st FLOOR, SHAHI
BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA.
5. THE DEALERS SELECTION BOARD,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., EASTERN REGION, INDANE
AREA OFFICE, 1st FLOOR, SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION
ROAD, PATNA.
6. SRI RAJU KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI DINA NATH SINGH
7. SRI AJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE
APPELLANT.
8. SRI SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE
APPELLANT,
RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 8 THROUGH THE SENIOR AREA
MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORTION LTD., (MARKETING
DIVISION), EASTERN REGION, INDANE AREA OFFICE, 1st
FLOOR, SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA.
. . . . . RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
For the Appellant : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anail Kumar Jha, Sr. Adv.
-----------
7/ 25.01.2011 The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of
the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against the
order dated 03.12.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2787 of 2009,
whereby the writ application has been dismissed on merit in absence
of learned counsel of the petitioner.
The appellant filed aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 2787 of 2009
for quashing the letter dated 04.02.2009, issued under the signature
2
of Senior Area Manager, I.O.C. Ltd. (Respondent no.4 in writ
application), whereby it was communicated that candidature of writ
petitioner for award of L.P.G. Distributor at Masrakh stands
cancelled, as in course of investigation it was found that the Land
Possession Certificate (LPC) and the rent receipts submitted by him
were found to be forged. The writ petitioner further prayed for
quashing of the selection and merit list prepared by the respondent
authorities dated 04.02.2009, for which interview was held on
05.12.2008, wherein respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 have been placed at
serial nos. 1, 2 and 3.
The case of the appellant in short is that pursuant to
advertisement for selection of distributorship of L.P.G. for a location
in Masrakh in the district of Saran under open category, he
submitted his application with all relevant documents. The appellant
enclosed registered lease deed executed by Sri Upendra Kumar
Singh and one Shri Ashok Kumar Singh in his favour. The appellant
appeared in interview before the selection committee on 05.12.2008.
No merit list was published on 05.12.2008, instead the respondent
no.4 directed the appellant to appear in his office with title and
possession certificate of the land, since a complaint was received
and the complainant had claimed title and possession over the land
in question. The appellant appeared and produced all relevant
documents in support of title and peaceful possession of the lessor.
The appellant filed another representation stating that copy of the
complaint and documents attached there with were not made
available to him. The grievance of the appellant is that over looking
3
all grounds and documents, the respondent no.4 illegally cancelled
his candidature for award of distributorship of L.P.G. on the ground
of furnishing incorrect information on capability to provide
infrastructure. The appellant, as such filed the instant C.W.J.C. No.
2787 of 2009 against cancellation of his candidature.
This Court by order dated 03.03.2009 gave liberty to the
writ petitioner to file a complaint in terms of advertisement with
regard to his being declared as ineligible, which would be decided
by the Officer in the rank of General Manager, who would pass
appropriate order within six weeks. It was further directed that the
Indian Oil Corporation would file counter affidavit bringing the
order on record that is passed by General Manager of I.O.C. The
appellant thereafter filed his representation before General Manager,
Bihar State Office of I.O.C. The General Manager did not agree
with the grounds mentioned in the presentation. He observed that his
candidature for distributorship has rightly been cancelled for
producing incorrect documents regarding infrastructure. The
General Manager in his report dated 25.06.2009 observed that the
Circle Officer, Masrakh vide letter dated 28.01.2009 has clarified
that LPC no. 897 dated 16.12.2008 are forged and rent receipts are
not issued from its office. It was further noted that Circle Officer,
Masrakh has clarified that letter no. 90 dated 22.04.2008 addressed
to District Magistrate, Saran stated that one Bindeshwari Prasad and
Pramod Tiwari are the rightful owners of the land. In another word,
the lessors of the appellant are not the rightful owner of the land,
which the farmer had shown in respect to infrastructure capability.
4
The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ application in his absence without
considering the materials on record. He submits that mutation order
of the land in question would show that the lessor of the appellant
was the rightful owner of the land in question. The grievance of the
appellant is that over looking the aforesaid aspects, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ application without even adjourning
the same for a day, as it had come for hearing for the first time after
filing of the counter affidavit.
We find that the learned Single Judge in his order has
observed that after thorough investigation and enquiry, the General
Manager, I.O.C. found that the information furnished by the
petitioner was false and incorrect. For sake of convenience, the
relevant extracts of enquiry made by the General Manager is quoted
herein below:
“In case, the information produced by the applicant
is false and incorrect, it is sufficient to cancel
candidature of the applicant as per terms and
conditions of the advertisement. C.O., Masarakh vide
their letter Ref 6 Mu dated 28.01.2009 have clarified
that LPC No. 896, 897 dt. 16.12.2008 are forged and
rent receipts are not issued from their office. Circle
Officer, Masarakh has further clarified that letter no.
90 dated 22.04.2008 addressed to D.M., Saran is
correct and Bindeshwari Prasad and Pramod Tiwari
are rightful owners of the land”.
The issue whether the lessor of the appellant was having
5title and possession over the land or whether the letter issued by
Circle Officer, Masrakh is correct, as claimed by the appellant, is
prima facie in dispute in view of letters of Circle Officer, Masrakh.
Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge, as such this appeal is dismissed.
(S.K. Katriar, J.)
(S. P. Singh, J.)
Uday/