IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7087 of 2011
Babli Kumari Singh, wife of Sanjeev Kumar Singh, resident of village
Ghosi Amnour, P.O. and P.S. Amnour, District Saran.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India through under Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi
2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Senior Regional
Manager, Patna L.P.G. Region 6th Floor Loknayak Jaiprakash
Bhawan, Dakbanglow Chowk
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. 6 th Floor Loknayak
Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dakbanglow Chowk, Patna
4. The Director (Marketing) Hindustan Petoleum Corporation Ltd.,
Hindustan Bhawan, 17, Jamshedji TATA Road, Mumbai-400020.
5. Senior Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. Region 6 th Floor Loknayak
Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dakbanglow Chowk, Patna.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhowrah, District Saran.
7. The Circle Officer, Amnour, District Saran
... Respondents
-----------
For the Petitioner : M/s Sharda Nand Mishra and
Rananjay Kumar, Advocates
For the H.P.C.L. : Dr. Pankaj, Advocate
For the Union of India : None.
——–
04/ 07.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and
its authorities. No one appears for respondent-Union of India.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging letter dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure 7), by which the
candidature of the petitioner for award of Rajeev Gandhi Gramin
L.P.G. Vitrak ( R.G.G. L.V. ) at location Amnour in the district of
Saran under general category advertised on 17.10.2009 was
cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of the
advertised location.
3. Annexure B to respondents’ counter-affidavit is a
2
copy of the advertisement issued by respondent-Corporation on
17.10.2009 inviting applications for grant of Rajeev Gandhi Gramin
L.P.G. Vitrak at hundreds of location including village Amnour
under open category, which is at serial no. 126 of the said
advertisement and the application filed by the petitioner showed his
residence as Ghosi Amnour.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is no mauza/village in the name of Amnour, rather the
petitioner is a resident of Ghosi Amnour, which is a tola of village
Amnour Sultan and which she had specifically and correctly stated
in her application and hence there being no mis-statement in her
application, there was no occasion for the authorities to reject the
claim of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-
Corporation has produced Annexure C, which is brochure for
selection of R.G.G. L.V. and Annexure E, which is the
investigation report for R.G.G. L.V. at village Amnour, in which it
was found that there is no village by the name of Amnour, rather
there are four villages, namely, Amnour Harnarayan, Amnour
Aguan (I & II), Amnour Kalyan and Amnour Sultan and on that
basis statement has been made by the respondents in paragraph no.
9.4 of their counter affidavit submitting that there being no revenue
village by the name of Amnour, which is advertised location, the
entire proceeding with respect to the said village is vitiated.
6. From the certificate of the Anchal Adhikari dated
3
23.08.2010 produced by the petitioner as Annexure 6 to this writ
petition also, it is apparent that there is no village by the name of
Amnour only, rather name of the petitioner’s residence is Tola
Ghosi Amnour, which is a part of village Amnour Sultan.
7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the basis of
the entire dispute, namely, the mention of the advertised location as
village Amnour is not correct, due to which respondents themselves
have admitted that the entire proceeding with respect to the said
village Amnour is vitiated.
8. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the authorities
dated 23.08.2000 and 28.03.2011 as well as the advertisement
concerned with respect to village Amnour are held to be not valid in
law and are, accordingly, quashed, with a liberty to respondent-
Corporation to issue a fresh advertisement with respect to the proper
revenue village.
9. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )