Patna High Court
Asha Devi vs The Union Of India And Ors on 13 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20348 of 2018
======================================================
Asha Devi W/o Late Vinod Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Lal Parsa, P.S.-
Sugauli, District- West Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi - 110011
2. The Director General Resettlement, Directorate General Resettlement,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India, West Block - IV, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi - 110066
3. The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing
Division, Eastern Region, Indane Area Office, Patna, Shashi Bhawan,
Exhibition Road, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabindra Nath Kanth, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr.Ram Anurag Singh,CGC
For the IOCL : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the Writ
application for the following reliefs:
"For issuance of appropriate writ, order
or direction to the Respondent No. 1 and
2, directing them to make payment of
monetary compensation to the petitioner
for the pecuniary loss and damage
caused due to breach of public duty to be
objective in issuing Eligibility Certificate
for allotment of LPG distributorship under
defence category and due to error
committed by Respondent No. 2 in
Patna High Court CWJC No.20348 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
issuing wrong Eligibility Certificate, the
selection and grand of LPG
distributorship to the petitioner has been
set aside, resulting into termination of
the LPG distributorship of the Petitioner,
which involves pecuniary loss of several
lakhs rupees to the Petitioner and also
affected the source of livelihood of the
Petitioner."
2. This is the second round of litigation
arising from the same cause. The petitioner is the
widow of Late Sepoy Vinod Kumar Singh, who died
in 1988 while serving the Indian Army in Jammu &
Kashmir. In 2007, she applied for LPG
distributorship under the defence quota. She was
issued an Eligibility Certificate dated 14.11.2007
by the Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry
of Defence under Priority-II. Relying upon the said
certificate, she applied for the LPG distributor at
Raxaul by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and
was selected. A Letter of Intent (LOI) and Letter of
Appointment (LOA) were issued to her, and she
commenced distributorship operations. The second
Patna High Court CWJC No.20348 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
empanelled candidate, Smt. Rani Devi, challenged
the petitioner's selection. Upon inquiry, the EME
Records clarified that the petitioner's husband's
death, though attributable to military service, did
not qualify as a battle casualty. Based on this
clarification, Directorate General Resettlement
unilaterally downgraded the petitioner's eligibility
from Priority-II to Priority-IV. Even after the
deduction of marks, due to the change in priority,
the petitioner retained the top position in the merit
list. However, the Division Bench of this Court in
LPA No. 704 of 2010 set aside her selection on the
ground that her application was defective at
inception, as it was based on an incorrect Eligibility
Certificate. Her subsequent review petition and
Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court were dismissed. IOCL then terminated her
distributorship.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner merely applied for
an Eligibility Certificate and did not seek any
specific priority. The DGR, on its own assessment,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20348 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
issued the certificate under Priority-II. The
petitioner acted in good faith, relying upon an
official document issued by a competent authority
applied for LPG distributorship. It is further
submitted that the subsequent downgrading was
done unilaterally without affording any opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner
suffered financial loss of around Rs.10 lakhs due to
cancellation of dealership. The Directorate General
Resettlement failed in its duty to verify facts and
act objectively before issuing the certificate,
amounting to administrative negligence. Therefore,
the petitioner is entitled for monetary
compensation to the loss caused.
5. In support of the submissions, the
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i)
United AIR Travel Services v. Union of India
( W.P. (C) No. 631 of 2016 (ii) Chambara Soy
v. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in AIR 2008
Orissa 148.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20348 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of
the respondent No. 3 / IOCL.The Learned counsel
for the IOCL submitted that Indian Oil Corporation
acted strictly on the basis of the Eligibility
Certificate issued by the DGR. The Letter of Intent
and subsequent Letter of Allotment were issued
conditionally, subject to revision in priority by
Directorate General Resettlement.
7. It is further submitted that in light of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench's in LPA No. 704/2010, IOCL terminated the
dealership of the petitioner.
8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the
parties and of perusal of records, it appears that
the petitioner's application was entertained and
the selection was made on the basis of an
erroneous certificate issued by Directorate General
Resettlement under Priority-II. The Division Bench
of this Court, in LPA No. 704/2010, has already held
that the application itself was defective since
inception, and thus the entire selection process
stood vitiated. This view was affirmed by dismissal
Patna High Court CWJC No.20348 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
of the review petition and Special Leave Petition by
the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner's claim for
compensation is founded upon administrative
negligence by Directorate General Resettlement.
9. The prayer for issuance of a writ,
directing payment of compensation on the basis of
an alleged administrative lapse cannot be acceded
in the absence of clear proof of mala fide, gross
negligence, or breach of a statutory duty. In the
present case, competent court of law has not held
that the Directorate General Resettlement has
acted with malice negligence or inviolation of
statutory obligation. The petitioner's recourse, if
any, lies in pursuing a civil suit for damages, where
such claims can be adjudicated upon evidence of
negligence and actual loss.
10. This Court, while exercising its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot assess compensation claims that
involves disputed facts.
11. In light of the above discussion, this
Court finds no merit in the present writ petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20348 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
The prayer for monetary compensation is not
maintainable in the exercise of writ jurisdiction,
particularly in light of the fact that the legality of
the distributorship in question is conclusively
determined by earlier judicial pronouncements.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
13. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.10.2025
Transmission Date
