Smt. Vinod Kanwar vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 April, 2010

CW-5948/2009-Smt. Vinod Kanwar Vs. The Union of India & Ors.    Judgment dt.13.4.2010

                                           1/3


             S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5948/2009
           Smt. Vinod Kanwar Vs. The Union of India & Ors.

Date of order                         :                    13th April, 2010

                                    PRESENT

              HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr. S.P. Sharma for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Bishnoi for the respondents.

                                          -------

1.             Heard learned counsels.



2.             By the impugned order Annex.R2/1 dated 8.7.2009, the

respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short 'BPCL')

rejected the application of the petitioner for LPG Gas Distributorship

on three grounds:-



               (i) That the petitioner failed to maintain the minimum

               balance of Rs.10 lacs in her Saving Bank.

               (ii) That the requisite land in question was not owned

               and possessed by the petitioner; and

               (iii) There is variance in the income affidavit submitted

               with the application and finding at the field investigation.



3.             The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had applied for the same distributorship in the category of

Para-Military Forces (PMF) as her husband was awarded gallantry
 CW-5948/2009-Smt. Vinod Kanwar Vs. The Union of India & Ors.   Judgment dt.13.4.2010

                                         2/3


award "Shourya Chakra" by the President of India. He, therefore,

submitted that the grounds taken by the respondent company are not

good enough for rejecting the application as the temporary

withdrawal from the saving bank account does not mean that she did

not have sufficient financial resources and secondly one bigha land

was purchased by the petitioner and agreement to sale was also in

favour of her minor children and, therefore, it is also not a good

ground.



4.             On the other hand, Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel

for the respondent Company submits that it is for the respondent-

company to consider the application of similarly situated persons in

this category objectively and since the particulars given in the

application were found to be incorrect by the applicant as the

agreement to sale even if assumed to be in favour of the applicant do

not confer any ownership rights on the petitioner and since in this

manner the petitioner did not have any title for the land in question

requisite for setting up of the said distributorship establishment, she

could not be considered for the same. Even the temporary withdrawal

from her Bank account of Rs.1 lacs on 4.12.2007 as stated in the

impugned order dis-entitled her from such consideration.



5.             Having heard learned counsels, this court is of the view

that findings arrived at in the impugned order are sufficient and
 CW-5948/2009-Smt. Vinod Kanwar Vs. The Union of India & Ors.   Judgment dt.13.4.2010

                                         3/3


reasonable ground for rejection of the said application of the

petitioner. If in the opinion of this respondent Corporation BPCL if

the applicant did not fulfill the conditions as stipulated in the

advertisement on the date of application to the satisfaction of the

respondent Corporation, they cannot be faulted in rejecting the

application of the petitioner. It is true that with mere agreement to

sale in her possession, the petitioner cannot be said to be possessing

the title over the land in question. Even if subsequent purchase of

one bigha of land by the petitioner is assumed to be correct, the same

cannot be taken as sufficient compliance of the requirement of

advertisement.      Therefore, the impugned order of the respondent-

Corporation cannot be assailed successfully under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.



6.             The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The

same is accordingly dismissed.

                                                [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J.

item No.10
babulal/