AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent/Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to choose/accept the house offered by him to be selected and used as a godown for keeping records. The house was offered by the petitioner on the advertisement issued by the LIC. There were other applicants also with their respective offers.
It appears from the records of the case that the house of private respondent No. 6 has been selected for using the same as godown.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requirement of selection according to the advertisement was that the house in question must be within 5 kms. of Zero Mile, By-Pass Road and Danapur, but the house offered by private respondent No. 6 does not fall in the aforesaid categories.
This is the reason for the petitioner to approach this Court with a prayer for cancellation of the selection of the house of private respondent No. 6 and instead, selecting the house offered by him to be taken as godown.
This Court wonders whether selection of a godown would come within the purview of the subject matter of trade and commerce. Any income derived from letting out a premises is only a soft-earned income, which does not contribute to trade and commerce. Apart from this case not falling in the concerned roster, no writ would lie for selection of a particular house as a godown by a public sector enterprise. It cannot be said that there is any right of a person to have his house selected for any purpose by a public sector undertaking.
The writ petition is highly misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed.