AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2379 of 2018 dated 06.10.2018.
The appellants herein are among the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent-writ petitioner filed an application for distributorship of LPG pursuant to a notification issued by the appellant inviting applications for distributorship. The application, submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner, was for Village Ladpur, Block Raipur, District Dehradun. The respondent-writ petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that, as per the lease-deed which the respondent-writ petitioner had uploaded, the place for the show room, which he had offered, was not situated in Ladpur, but somewhere else.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 09.08.2018, the District Magistrate filed an affidavit wherein he stated that a spot inspection report was sought from the Tehsil authorities, who, in their report dated 21.08.2018, have stated that the subject shops were situated in Village Ladpur. The learned Single Judge observed that the report was sought for by the Court in view of the guidelines of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India that, in case of ambiguity, the clarification was to be given by the revenue authorities; and now the District Magistrate has clarified the position. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed as under:
"In view thereof, learned Counsel for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has very fairly submitted that in the light of it, the case of the petitioner shall be considered and a decision shall be taken in this regard in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner.
Consequently, this writ petition is hereby allowed to the extent that the petitioner's case is now to be considered in the light of the report. Impugned order dated 16.7.2018 is set aside."
Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the said report of the revenue authorities is contrary to the documents submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner himself along with his application seeking grant of the dealership; and the order of the learned Single Judge may be misunderstood as a direction to the respondents to adhere to the report of the revenue officials.
The learned Single Judge has, in the order under appeal, recorded the submission of the learned counsel for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. that, in the light of it (report), the case of the petitioner would be considered, and a decision would be taken in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge has only directed the respondents to consider the respondent-writ petitioner's case in the light of the report. The said order does not require the appellants to grant distributorship to the respondent-writ petitioner, but only to consider the petitioner's case in the light of the report. The order under appeal, based on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, does not suffer from a patent error warranting interference in an intra-court appeal. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.