HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.409 OF 2006
Shiv Kumar Gabel
...Petitioners
Versus
The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & another
...Respondents
! Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Bhishma Kinger, Advocate for the respondents
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 29/06/2010
: Judgement
ORDER (ORAL)
(Passed on this 29th day of June, 2010)
(Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India)
1. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that pursuant to
the advertisement dated 22/05/2005 (Annexure P/2), the
petitioner made an application for allotment of Kisan Seva
Kendra (for short “KSK”). After having considered the
application of the petitioner at length the petitioner was
found successful. Accordingly, in the list of short
listed candidates for allotment of KSK at Kota, Block Mal
Kharod, Distt.-Janjgir-Champa, the petitioner was placed
serial No.1 vide selection list dated 22/08/2005 (Annexure
– P/8). Thereafter, without affording an opportunity of
hearing, the impugned order dated 19/12/2005 was passed
canceling the allotment of KSK at Kota on the ground that
there are certain complaints against the merit panel of
candidates. It further states that during the course of
investigation it was found that the petitioner was not
fulfilling the conditions/suppressed the facts about his
residence certificate, therefore, re-interview for all
eligible candidates for the subject location as per the
policy guidelines was ordered.
2. The petitioner, after having been found selected as
No.1, was not given the allotment letter, thus, the
petitioner filed a petition before this Court being W.P.
No. 4501/2005. The said petition was disposed of by this
Court on 19/09/2005 (Annexure P/10) with an observation
that the petitioner may send a notice for demand of
justice to the respondents and in turn, the respondents to
take decision on the same within a reasonable time. It
was further observed that if the petitioner feels
dissatisfied, a liberty was reserved to the petitioner to
approach this Court.
3. In meantime, after issuance of legal notice, the
impugned order dated 19/12/2005 (Annexure P/1) was passed.
Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred the instant
petition seeking a direction that the impugned letter
dated 19/12/2005 may be quashed and the respondents may be
directed to allot KSK of Indian Oil Corporation for
location of Kota, Block-Mal Kharod, District-Janjgir-
Champa, to the petitioner.
4. This Court by order dated 27/04/2007 granted interim
relief to the extent that if the disputed petrol pump is
granted to some other person, that would be subject to
final decision of the case.
5. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the petitioner fulfilled all the
conditions and he has not suppressed the material facts
with regard to his residential certificate. All the
allegations have been made without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. According to Shri Kinger, learned counsel for the
respondent, the respondent corporation did not proceed
with the interview in view of the above stated order
passed by this Court. Thus, the KSK in dispute was not
allotted to any person and the same remains available even
today. Shri Kinger further submits that the petitioner
was short listed and was placed at serial No.1, but the
petitioner has not acquired any right for allotment. Even
otherwise, by impugned letter it was found that re-
interview of all eligible candidates for the subject
location would be done. Thus, there is no prejudice to
the petitioner.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended
thereto.
8. From the impugned letter, it appears that once the
petitioner has been found to have not fulfilled all the
conditions/suppressed the fact about the residence
certificate, the petitioner became disentitled for the
subsequent interview, which was under contemplation under
the impugned letter dated 19/12/2005. Thus, declaring the
petitioner that he has not fulfilled all the conditions or
suppressed the facts with regard to residence certificate
caused prejudice to the petitioner as it appears that all
the papers were examined before the interview and before
short listing the candidates. Thereafter, there was no
occasion to investigate on the basis of some complaint
without affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
9. Having regard to the fact situation of the case and
for the reasons mention hereinabove, the impugned letter
dated 19/12/2005 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed.
If after selection of the petitioner, his candidature has
been quashed on account of certain allegation, the
petitioner is entitled to be afforded an opportunity of
hearing. Accordingly, if the respondent corporation
decides not to allot the KSK as per the list of selected
candidates, the petitioner is entitled opportunity of
hearing before a prejudicial order condemning the conduct
of the petitioner is passed.
10. In normal course a person is not entitled to the
allotment order on the basis that his name found place in
the select list when allotment was not made to any other
person. However, in the facts of the case wherein the
allotment could not be made on the ground of certain
allegations, according to the petitioner, unfounded
allegations. Fundamental principle of the maxim audi
alteram partem is that ‘no man shall be condemned
unheard’. The said maxim is squarely applicable to the
facts of the case, as the impugned letter dated 19/12/2005
canceling the candidature of the petitioner was on the
basis of certain allegations.
11. In the result, the impugned letter dated 19/12/2005
is quashed and the writ petition is allowed to the extent
indicated above. No order asto costs.
J u d g e