G.B.T. Manjula and Others vs The Chief Zonal Manager, Indane Oil Corporation Limited and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J—Though the petitions are listed for consideration of the applications for vacating stay; with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions were heard on merits and the same is being disposed of on merits. The petitioners are assailing the communication dated 6-12-2013 issued by the first respondent selecting the second respondent as Rajeev Gandhi Gramina L.P.G. Vitaraka (''RGGLV'' for short) for Teligi Village of Harapanahalli Taluk at Annexure-L. The petitioners are also contending that the respondents 2 and 3 are ineligible for selection of RGGLV for Teligi Village of Harapanahalli Taluk. Consequently, the petitioners seeking that either of them be selected as RGGLV.

The petitioners claim to be permanent residents of the area. In response to the notification dated 29-3-2011 issued by the first respondent, the petitioners have applied seeking grant of agency in their favour under the open category. The respondents 2 and 3 had also applied for the very same area in response to the said notification.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent 2 though does not satisfy the requirements as notified he has been selected. The case is that respondents 2 and 3 are ineligible.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents do not satisfy the requirement of possessing the minimum deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs and also the land details which had been furnished for setting up the godown was not as per the requirement.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the document at Annexure-J, dated 31-8-2013 would disclose that the respondent 2 has acquired the property subsequent to the date of the notification and as such the said property could not have been considered as satisfying the requirement. The petitioners also contend that a detailed complaint had been made by the petitioners, yet the respondents have not considered the same in accordance with law, but by a cryptic order have rejected the grievance as put forth by the petitioners through the communication dated 28-11-2013.

The respondents have filed their objection statement. They contend that as per the regulations, the applicant if an unmarried person could provide financial details either in his personal name or in the name of his father. Even with regard to the property which is required for setting up of the godown, it could be either in the name of the applicant or in the name of the father. It is therefore contended that the details furnished itself would indicate the financial capacity of the father of the second respondent and also the details of the property regarding which the gift deed has been executed in favour of the second respondent was the same property which was standing in the name of his father as on the date of the application and indicated therein. In addition to the objection statement, the learned Counsel for the first respondent has also relied upon the original records to indicate the manner in which Field Verification has been made and satisfaction has been recorded by the first respondent with regard to the condition relating to the possession of the land being satisfied.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that it is a subsequent document and the same cannot be relied upon. The contention is sought to be fortified by relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, (2013) 10 SCALE 42 : (2013) 11 SCC 58 : (2013) 4 SCT 543 . On the position of law as enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, there can be no dispute whatsoever. However, the question for consideration herein is as to whether the respondent 2 had satisfied the condition as on the date of filing the application or was it subsequent thereto.

In that regard, the copy of the application filed by the second respondent has in fact been produced by the petitioner at Annexure-C to the petition. The copy of the same is also available in the records furnished by the learned Counsel for the first respondent. The column providing for indication of the financial capacity is at para 10.1. The details furnished therein in respect of the deposits held by the father of the second respondent would indicate that there were three deposits of Rs. 1,65,423/-; Rs. 30,777/- and Rs. 19,014/-. The said details relating to the financial capacity is in addition to the financial position of the brother and sister of the second respondent. Even if the financial position of the brother, who is married, is excluded, the amount as indicated above stand in the name of the father and it would satisfy the requirement of minimum of Rs. 2 lakhs required for the said purpose. Hence, the objection of the learned Counsel in that regard could not be sustainable.

The next aspect for consideration is with regard to the land that was made available for the purpose of setting up of the godown. The details relating to the same is contended in column 10.4 of the application. Two items of land has been indicated therein. Even as per the case of the petitioners that the first item of the land shown therein does not satisfy the requirement as per the field verification and therefore the alternate land is made available for the second respondent is taken into consideration, the portion of the property in No. 422 stands in the father''s name of the second respondent and it has already been indicated the application. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view and the document produced at Annexure-J is taken into consideration, though the gift deed in favour of the second respondent is dated 31-8-2013, which is subsequent, the said gift deed is executed by none other than the father of the second respondent who was shown as the owner of the property in the application filed. The schedule of the gift deed would indicate the same portion of the land in No. 422 and therefore, the said document cannot be considered as a material provided subsequently by the second respondent since the same is only in addition to the ownership of the father. The fact that the details relating to the financial position and the land of the father had been indicated and there is nothing brought on record to indicate that the father in fact has not consented to the same. In a case of the present nature, whether the second respondent has been awarded the dealership and also constructed the godown, I find reason to interfere with the dealership granted in his favour. In any event, he satisfies the requirement regarding which the petitioners had made the grievance. Hence, the petitions being devoid of merits stand disposed of. In view of disposal of petitions, the applications also stand disposed of.