Sunita Meena vs H P C Ltd And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5693 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

            D.B. Civil Review Petition (Writ) No. 52/2018

                                        In

            D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 668/2017

                                        In

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19722/2013

Sunita Meena W/o Shri Hetram Meena, R/o Roopbas, Gram
Panchayat - Bhugor, Post Cb Form, Motidungri, Tehsil And District
Alwar.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Hindustan   Petroleum         Corporation         Limited,   Registered
         Office 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai 400020.
2.       Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Jaipur, Lpg
         Regional Office D-7, Lal Bahadur Nagar East, JLN Marg,
         Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
3.       Vishram Meena S/o Puran Mal Meena, R/o Village Post
         Bhugor, District Alwar Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Yashodhar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment / Order

21/10/2021

This review petition seeks to recall order dated 13.09.2017

passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.

668/2017, whereby, the order passed by the learned Single Judge

(2 of 5) [WRW-52/2018]

earlier on 25.01.2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19722/2013

has been maintained and special appeal was dismissed.

Shorn of unnecessary details, keeping in view the fact that

this Court is in review petition, the relevant facts giving rise to

review petition are stated infra.

The review applicant had submitted her application offering

her candidature for allotment of LPG outlet for the location

"Bhugor". The advertisement Annexure-1 (attached with the writ

petition) invited applications of the desirous applicants location

wise. The application of the applicant was eventually rejected on

the solitary reason that the applicant was the resident of village

Roopbas, whereas, the location for which the applications were

invited was village Bhugor. The review petitioner filed writ petition

before this Court. Though, a contention was raised in Para 9 of the

writ petition that Village Roopbas is part of Village Bhugor, but

that contention was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. The

respondents' stand taken before the Court was that village

Roopbas and village Bhugor are separate villages, which stand

found favour. Writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single

Judge. Thereafter, the review petitioner preferred appeal, which

was also dismissed. The review petitioner went to the Hon'ble

Supreme Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)

No. 1482/2018 (Sunita Meena V/s. Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited & Ors.), which was withdrawn with liberty to

file review petition before this Court vide order dated 25.01.2018.

In these peculiar facts and circumstances, the review petitioner

has filed the present review petition.

Learned counsel for the review petitioner vehemently argued

before us by submitting that entire controversy as to whether

(3 of 5) [WRW-52/2018]

village Roopbas and village Bhugor are separate revenue entity or

one and the same has been set at rest. Drawing attention to an

order passed earlier in the proceedings, he would submit that

pursuant to the direction of this Court, an affidavit along with

report of Patwari Halka Bhugor, District Alwar was filed stating that

village Roopbas is not a separate revenue village and is part of

revenue village Bhugor. Therefore, it is clear that for all purposes

village Roopbas has to be treated as part of the village Bhugor and

therefore rejection of her application on the ground that she is

resident of village Roopbas which is at variance with the terms and

conditions of the advertisement is not justified. He would submit

that the process of allotment has to be in accordance with the

revenue records and not on the basis of some different

geographical location of group of villages in a given revenue

village. According to him, the revenue documents which have now

been placed on record fully support and clearly establish the

review petitioner's case that village Bhugor includes village

Roopbas.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submit that the applications were invited location wise taking into

consideration the requirement of services to be rendered by

providing outlet. According to learned counsel for the respondents,

particularly learned counsel appearing for the petroleum company,

mention of village Bhugor in the advertisement was for the specific

village Bhugor and it was not intended to include geographical

areas of any other village including village Roopbas and therefore,

merely because it happened a part of village Bhugor for the

purposes of revenue record, the claim of the review petitioner

cannot be accepted as the sole purpose of making allotment is

(4 of 5) [WRW-52/2018]

based on a particular location and even if a revenue village may

include more than one village, for the purposes of making

allotment, peculiar location of a given village assume importance.

We have considered the submissions advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties as also examined the issue which is

more of a fact and both the parties have come out with different

documents. What is required to be seen is that the advertisement

mentions village. It is for the respondent-petroleum corporation to

come out of its own policy. Based on their arguments if they have

chosen to allot outlet at village Bhugor, though for the purposes of

revenue records same village Bhugor includes some other villages,

it cannot be said that the review petitioner belongs to Bhugor. The

reference to village Bhugor is essentially of geographical area and

location on the basis of which the outlets are identified by the

petroleum company for the purposes of granting licences to run

distributorship of LPG outlets.

Therefore, even if we accept the arguments of the learned

counsel for the review petitioner that village Bhugor is a revenue

village including some other villages, may be Roopbas, then also,

we are not inclined to interfere with the policy of the petroleum

company to identify the location where they intend to open an LPG

outlet by distributorship. If the respondent company has chosen to

locate Bhugor proper as the place where the outlet is to be

established, merely because Bhugor revenue village may include

some other villages, the claim of those who are residing in the

villages other than Bhugor may not be considered, if they are

actually not resident of Bhugor as such, but resident of another

village which, only for revenue purposes, forms the part of the

revenue village Bhugor.

(5 of 5) [WRW-52/2018]

The decision which has been taken by the respondent

petroleum company to choose the location and the suitable

candidates based on its actual and physical location and

availability of land for establishing LPG distributorship cannot be

questioned.

In the result, we do not find any reason to review and recall

the order which is earlier passed. Review petition has no

substance and is dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita/41

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)