Allahabad High Court

Smt. Sunita Singh vs Hindustran Petroleum ... on 11 May, 2011

Bench: Amitava Lala, Ashok Srivastava

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21194 of 2011.

Smt. Sunita Singh. ......... ........ Petitioner.

Versus

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others....... Respondents.

----------

Present:

(Hon. Mr. Justice Amitava Lala & Hon. Mr. Justice Ashok Srivastava)

Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Wasim Alam, &

Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari.

For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Budhwar.

--------

Amitava Lala, J.-- In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10th March, 2011, whereby her application for grant of LPG distributorship under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme (hereinafter in short called as "RGGLV") in respect of the place, known as Village Dharampur Vishunpur, District Mau, Uttar Pradesh, has been cancelled, and has further prayed for quashing the selection process held on 14th March, 2011 pursuant to the news item dated 11th March, 2011 in respect of such place, along with other incidental prayers.

Petitioner's contention is that she was selected as first empanelled candidate for grant of LPG distributorship under the RGGLV in respect of the concerned place. However, after being successful in the respective process of selection, her selection was cancelled as per Paragraph 12.10 of the Brochure on Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) (hereinafter in short called as ''Brochure'). Therefore, let us go through the facts of the case to understand the position.

Briefly stated facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 17th October, 2009 for grant of LPG distributorship under the RGGLV the petitioner applied for the same in respect of the concerned place. Such application of the petitioner was accompanied with the required documents including extract of Khasra/ Khatauni in respect of the clear title over the land, which is to be used for construction of LPG cylinder storage godown. Such land, as proposed by the petitioner, is in the joint ownership of the petitioner's husband and other family members. The petitioner's husband is one of the co-sharers along with others of the said land and is recorded as such in the records. The husband of the petitioner and other co-sharers submitted their joint affidavit in favour of the petitioner that in case the petitioner is selected for distributorship and she constructs godown/showroom over such land, they will have no objection. Share of the petitioner's husband in the land is more than the area required for the purpose of construction of LPG godown/showroom. The eligibility criteria of a candidate are the first step in the process of selection. As per the brochure, a Committee consisting of two officers of the concerned Oil Company will make scrutiny of the application and award marks to the applicants based on the information given in the application. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded 81% marks and was declared qualified along with five other candidates for the purpose of participating in the further selection process. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon by a letter dated 28th July, 2010 to participate in the draw on 20th August, 2010, wherein the petitioner has been selected. However, subsequently by the impugned order dated 10th March, 2011 her candidature has been cancelled on the ground of non-availability of land as per the requirement and thereafter selection has been made in favour of the respondent no. 3.

The petitioner has contended that at the time of eligibility test the title of the petitioner's husband over the land was found clear along with other co-sharers, who submitted their no objection as per the requirement under the rules as unless she crosses the basic eligibility test, she is not supposed to face further process of selection. Therefore, when the petitioner was made eligible on the basis of the materials prior to the process of selection, she can not be made ineligible subsequently. The petitioner further contended that a field verification was conducted as per Paragraph 12.9 of the brochure, but at that juncture it was not pointed out that petitioner's husband has no clear title over the land. Apart from that, the order impugned was passed on 10th March, 2011 but before that neither any notice was given nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Further selection was ordered on 10th March, 2011 when news item was published on 11th March, 2011 and ultimately selection of other candidates was held on 14th March, 2011. The order of cancellation was sent to the petitioner on 15th March, 2011 i.e. after the selection made on 14th March, 2011, wherein the respondent no. 3 has been selected.

The respondents-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation have come with a case that the petitioner does not come in the purview of ''family unit' as defined in Paragraph 4 (e) of the brochure, which gives meaning of the ''family unit', as follows:

" ''Family Unit' in case of married person/applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, ''Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case of divorcee, ''Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/ unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, ''Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s)."

By showing such paragraph, the respondents wanted to establish before us that since the applicant is a married person, she should be exclusive owner of the land or as co-sharer with her spouse, son and daughter. For the sake of such paragraph, right of her husband as co-sharer with other brothers can not be treated as ''family unit'. Hence, no right can be derived to the petitioner from her husband. Therefore, when by field verification the petitioner's husband was found to be co-sharer of the property along with other brothers, selection of the petitioner was cancelled.

According to us, the word ''family unit' is used loosely in the brochure and contrary to the law of succession. It can not override the law. One can be co-sharer of a family property and his right in the share devolves upon his wife, son and daughter. If wife starts a business on an immovable property with the consent of husband and other co-sharers, no objection can be raised by the Corporation. It can only verify locale/site for the sake of their business promotion, protection from any dispute out of such land and evaluation between others' land. Our general observation is that sometimes site selection is made by the authority on the leasehold land. In the process, appropriate evaluation is required to be made. The authority should not show any vindictiveness to suit any oblique purpose.

We find from the brochure that there is a paragraph, being Paragraph 12.10, which speaks as follows:

"12.10 In case of rejection of selected candidate due to findings in the Field Investigation or if selected candidate is unable to develop facilities for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak within the specified time, then his candidature will be cancelled and draw will be held again from the remaining qualified eligible candidates to select the next candidate following the procedure as mentioned above in para 12.3 to 12.6."

There is another paragraph, being Paragraph 15, in the brochure, which provides for consideration of the grievance or complaint by the redressal system of the oil company itself.

Against this background, factually when we find that the cancellation order was passed on 10th March, 2011 and the same was sent to the petitioner through registered post on 15th March, 2011, and in between these two dates news item was published on 11th March, 2011 and subsequent selection was held on 14th March, 2011 by selecting the respondent no. 3 herein, such exercise appears to be contrary to the interest of a selected candidate. No specified time has been given to the petitioner to explain the position as mentioned in the order of cancellation dated 10th March, 2011 pursuant to such Paragraph 12.10, the petitioner is entitled to file her grievance before the concerned redressal system within seven days from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order to get an opportunity of hearing and if she does so, the authority concerned will consider the cause and finalise the issue within a period of seven days thereafter. Only after consideration of the grievance of the petitioner, the authority concerned will be entitled to call upon the respondent no. 3 to verify her record too to evaluate her right over the land. However, no letter of intent will be issued, if not already issued, to any candidate. In case letter of intent has already been issued, no letter of appointment will be issued for such period.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order is passed as to costs.

Let the copies of the necessary documents and/or written notes of argument, as submitted by the parties before this Court, be kept with the record.

(Justice Amitava Lala)

I agree.

(Justice Ashok Srivastava)

Dated:11 May, 2011.

SKT/-

Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.

Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J.

The writ petition is disposed of.

No order is passed as to costs.