Sanjeeva Kumar R. vs Union of India and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.11.2014 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The second respondent through their advertisement in the ''Times of India'' dated 29.09.2013 had sought for applications from the eligible persons to consider the same for appointing such persons as LPG distributors. The petitioner had responded in respect of serial No. 57 Telating to Harihar-Shivamogga Road, Davanagere District. The second respondent on considering the application of the petitioner and on being selected in the lottery that was conducted, had found that the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria on two grounds. It is in that view the impugned communication dated 19.11.2014 is issued to petitioner. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

The respondents have filed their objection statement and have sought to justify their stand. The averments in the objection statement is to justify the reason that has been put forth in the impugned letter dated 19.11.2014. In that regard, it is contended that on the petitioner being selected in the lottery system, field verification of credentials was conducted and the requirement relating to godown and showroom being possessed by the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement. It is contended that the lease period for which the petitioner had secured the premises for godown was short by five days and showroom was not located in the place as has been indicated viz., on the Harihar-Shivamogga Road, but it is located on the Harihar-PB Road.

Insofar as the first aspect, it is to be noticed that the petitioner had furnished the lease deed in respect of the property for the periods from 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2028. The second respondent taking note that the submission date of the application is 15.11.2013, have computed the period of 15 years that was required and have thus indicated that it is short by 5 days. Such conclusion by the second respondent by taking a super technical view is not justified. Though the lease of the godown premises was secured on 11.11.2013, what is necessary to be noticed is that the same would subsist till 10.11.2028 which is sufficient for the purpose for which godown is being used if the distributorship is given to the petitioner. When the godown complies with the other requirements, the said reason is not justified.

Insofar as the second eligibility criteria which was noticed as a non-compliance on the part of the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has provided a place for showroom in any event is not in dispute. However, the contention as put forth in the objection statement in justification of the impugned letter dated 19.11.2014 is that the godown is located on the Harihar-PB Road and in the advertisement, required location is stated as Harihar-Shivamogga Road. The advertisement and the guidelines provided that such showroom is to be in the location or locality. Therefore, the consideration made in the impugned order is only that the shop is not in the location, but no reasons have been assigned with regard to the consideration as to whether the said shop is in the locality and whether it would satisfy the purpose. The petitioner on the other hand has relied on a certificate dated 19.05.2014 issued by the City Municipality, Harihar to indicate that the shop bearing door No. 968/939/968 is situate near the circle of Harihar-Shivamogga Road. From the same, it would indicate that though the shop is located towards the Harihar-PB Road, it is almost at the circle from where the Harihar-Shivamogga Road would also begin. Therefore, this aspect of the matter requires to be kept in view by the second respondent and if in that light the shop provided by the petitioner is to be considered as being in the locality, rejecting the case of the petitioner only on that ground would not be justified. However, the document more particularly the certificate issued by the City Municipality, Harihar and the additional documents, if any produced by the petitioner requires reconsideration on that aspect. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 19.11.2014 is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to furnish the said details to the second respondent who shall examine the same and thereafter take a decision in accordance with law. The same shall be done in an expeditious manner.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.