Smt.Shruti Mujumdar vs Secretary Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 12033 MP

                             1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                    ON THE 31 st OF JULY, 2023
                 WRIT PETITION No. 2116 of 2009

BETWEEN:-
SMT.   SHRUTI   MUJUMDAR    W/O   SHRIKANT
MUJUMDAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O "SHRI
VISHNU BHAWAN", CHHOTA BAZRAR, SHAHPUR,
DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PARAG TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
      DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS,
      SHASTRI BHAWNA, NEW DELHI

2.    THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION
      LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING
      DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE - 17, JAMSHED
      JI    TATA  ROAD,    MUMBAI     -   400020
      (MAHARASHTRA)

3.    THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN
      PETROLEUM    CORPORATION    LTD., GAUTAM
      NAGAR, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    DEPUTY    GENERAL       MANAGER    (L.P.G.)
      HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
      WEST ZONE, 2 FLOOR, R & C BUILDING,
      BYCULLA. MUMBAI - 400 008 MAHARASHTRA

5.    THE   EXECUTIVE     DIRECTOR,  HINDUSTAN
      PETROLEUM         CORPORATION    LIMITED,
      'HINDUSTAN    BHAWAN',   BALLORD   PEARS,
      MUMBAI - 400 001 (MAHARASHTRA)

6.    THE     REGIONAL    MANAGER,     HINDUSTAN
      PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., A.B. ROAD,
      N.H.-3 RAHUKHEDI, POST MANGLIYA, DISTRICT
      INDORE -453 77` (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                    2

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

This petition is filed on the ground that an advertisement was issued by various Government aided Oil Companies for allotment of LPG dealership. Petitioner was also one of the candidates. One Smt. Saroj Singh Chauhan was shortlisted for the dealership at LPG, Shahpur. Petitioner was placed at Sr. No.2. It is submitted that since Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Swarup Mishra vs. Union of India and others in Transferred Case No.100/2002 vide

judgment dated November 7, 2008 found Smt. Saroj Singh Chauhan to be ineligible for allotment of dealership, therefore, petitioner should have been allotted the dealership.

2. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent/Oil Company submits that Supreme Court in case of Mukund Swarup Mishra (supra) categorically noted that the allotments which were made by the Committee in 13 cases in which name of Smt Saroj Singh Chauhan is also mentioned was not made on merits and, therefore, upheld the cancellation of allotment of LPG dealership in favour of Smt Saroj Singh Chauhan. It is submitted that once the finding of the Committee constituted for allotment was not found as to be on merits then whole proceeding will stand vitiated and petitioner is not entitled to any relief by virtue of being at No.2 by the same Committee. Secondly, petitioner has not impleaded Smt Saroj Singh Chauhan as a party. Thirdly, the respondents have mentioned in their reply para 5.6 that under similar facts and circumstances a second empanelled candidate Shri Krishna Kumar Nirwan had

filed Civil Writ Petition No.453/2008 before the High Court of Rajasthan, which was dismissed on 21.01.2008. Against the said order, SLP No.22538/2008 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2008.

3. Shri Parag Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner submits that since allotment in favour of candidate placed at Sr. No.1 has been cancelled on the ground that she was sister-in-law of a Member of Parliament Shri Nand Kumar Singh Chauhan, the natural consequence will be to place the petitioner in the wait list.

4. However, this submission made by the petitioner is devoid of merits for two reasons. Firstly, when the findings of the Committee have been held to be vitiated for the reasons recorded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Swarup Mishra (supra), then whole proceeding of the Committee will go and they will not be only in relation to the person who was placed at Sr. No.1. Secondly, petitioner has not impleaded said person who was at Sr. No.1 as a respondent. Thirdly, there is no material to show that the findings of the Committee except for Smt Saroj Singh Chauhan have been upheld by the Supreme Court and in view of such facts, and also taking into consideration judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case of Shri Krishna Kumar Nirwan, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to automatic allotment of a

dealership on deletion of name of the person placed at Sr. No.1. In fact, petitioner has a right to apply afresh as and when dealership for the area is advertised and then compete with the other candidates and if found eligible to get an allotment. Thus, petition on merits has less substance and is, therefore, dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE DV

Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2023.08.03 10:17:54 +05'30'