AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:
“For issuance of an appropriate writ (s), order(s) or direction (S) for quashing of the decision dated 12.2.2018 by which the Respondent-Corporation has selected the Respondent no.6 as successful candidate for L.P.G distribution ship (Gramin), Phuchhti Kala, Ekma, Saran in utter violation of the guidelines enumerated in the Brochure of the Corporation as the plot which is shown for godown by Respondent no.6 is not as per the requirement enumerated by the Corporation and further to consider the claim of the petitioner as the petitioner fulfills all the requirements.”
The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that the Respondent-Corporation issued an advertisement dated 18.06.2017 for LPG distributorship at Phuchti Kala, Ekma, District Saran, reserved for Scheduled Caste (women). The petitioner, being an eligible candidate, submitted her online application and was permitted to participate in the draw along with other eligible candidates. The draw was held on 12.02.2018, in which respondent No.6 was declared successful.
The petitioner challenged the selection of respondent No.6 primarily on the ground that the land offered by her for construction of godown does not fulfil the requirements prescribed in the Corporation’s brochure. It is alleged that respondent No.6 entered into a lease agreement dated 22.07.2017 in respect of Plot No.2929, Khata No.469, measuring 15.99 decimals with one Madan Prasad Singh who was not the owner of the land.
The petitioner further alleges that a canal passes through the west side of the said plot, and the applicable guidelines specifically exclude the land through which any canal or drainage passes for the purpose of the LPG godown. In violation of the guidelines, the land was accepted during field verification and Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent No.6. The construction of godown has also commenced on the said plot against the norms of safety and security and against the guidelines.
Therefore, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection of respondent No.6 is liable to be quashed and the petitioner’s claim ought to be considered in accordance with the applicable guidelines.
A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation disclose that the draw for selection of Gramin LPG Vitrak at Puchti Kalan, District Saran, under the SC (Women) category, was conducted on 12.02.2018 among 22 eligible applicants, in which respondent No.6, Smt. Nitu Devi, was declared successful.
The Learned counsel for the respondents submits that field verification of the information and documents furnished by respondent No.6 was conducted in accordance with the applicable guidelines in which all the particulars were found to be correct and compliant with the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, June 2017. It is further submitted that the land offered for the godown was acquired through a registered lease deed No. 3514 dated 22.07.2017 and fulfilled the prescribed conditions.
The Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the canal does not pass through the offered plot and situated approximately five metres away from the western boundary of the plot and, therefore, there is no violation of the prescribed condition relating to the land for the godown.
The Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, after due field verification and approval of the competent authority, the Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 13.06.2018. Thereafter, upon fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent, the distributorship agreement was executed.
The Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the selection of respondent No.6 was made strictly in accordance with the advertisement and the applicable guidelines, and there is no illegality or arbitrariness and therefore prayed to dismiss the Writ petition.
A rejoinder to the counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the correspondence between the Circle Officer, Ekma, Saran and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saran Canal Sub-Division, Tajpur, vide letter No.22 dated 08.06.2019 along with the map.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid material was not properly considered by the respondents and the distributorship in favour of respondent No.6 is a product of connivance with the respondent.
A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit were also filed on behalf of respondent No.6. The Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the petitioner has challenged her selection, despite the fact that she was selected through a draw of lots held on 12.02.2018 amongst the eligible candidates and, thereafter, Letter of Intent was issued in her favour on 13.06.2018 after due field verification.
The Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the land offered for the LPG godown, i.e., Plot No.2929, Khata No.469, measuring 15.99 decimals, was validly leased to respondent No.6 for a period of 20 years. It is submitted that the lessor acquired his right and title over the land through succession/partition of the joint family property.
The Learned counsel for respondent No.6 further submits that no canal passes through Plot No.2929, reliance was placed upon the communication dated 13.10.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer, Saran Canal Division, pursuant to an RTI application, which states that no part of the said plot was acquired for the Satipur Miner (canal). It is further submitted that the land was found compliant with the applicable brochure during field verification.
The Learned counsel for respondent No.6 further submits that the petitioner has not availed the grievance mechanism provided under the applicable brochure for raising any objection regarding field verification or selection before approaching this Court and therefore prayed to dismiss the Writ petition.
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality or arbitrariness in the selection of respondent No.6.
The selection was made through a draw of lots amongst the eligible candidates, and thereafter the land offered by respondent No.6 was subjected to Field Verification of Credentials in accordance with the applicable Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, 2017. Upon verification, the competent authority found the land to be compliant with the prescribed requirements and accordingly issued the Letter of Intent in favour of respondent No.6.
The main objection of the petitioner is that a canal passes through the land offered for construction of the LPG godown. However, the respondents have specifically stated that the canal does not pass through Plot No.2929, and is situated about five metres away from its western boundary. Respondent No.6 has also produced documents to show that no part of the said plot was acquired for the canal. Therefore, based on the materials available, the petitioner has not been able to establish that the land offered by respondent No.6 is disqualified under the applicable guidelines.
It is also not disputed that the Letter of Intent was issued after field verification and that the distributorship was subsequently commissioned and is now functioning. A mere allegation of irregularity, without establishing any violation of the prescribed conditions, does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the selection of respondent No.6 or the consequential Letter of Intent/distributorship.
In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.