WPMS/527/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 1132 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
                         BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 527 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Nathu Ram.                                    .......Petitioner
     (By Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate)

AND:
Additional District Magistrate
(Finance and Revenue),
Haridwar and others.                        ....Respondents
     (By Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional C.S.C. for the State of
     Uttarakhand and Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for respondent
     no. 4)


                      JUDGMENT

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent no. 4 to take a decision on complaints dated 28-10-2019 and 06-12-2019 made by the petitioner before the respondent no. 4 (Annexure Nos. 2 & 3 to this writ petition) within the stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent no. 3 to take a decision on complaint dated 10-12-2020 made by the petitioner before the respondent no. 3

(Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition) within the stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement, which was published in newspapers on 25.11.2018, whereby applications were invited for grant of dealership for retail sale of petroleum products in Village Rahmatpur.

3. Learned counsel appearing for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has apprised the Court that one Mr. Anil Kumar has been selected for grant of said dealership.

4. In the writ petition, petitioner has contended that he has made complaints against the person, who has been selected for grant of dealership; however, the authorities are not taking any decision on such complaints. Petitioner has sought direction to the Competent Authority to take decision on the complaints made by him on 28.10.2019 and 06.12.2019.

5. It is an admitted position that petitioner had not applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.11.2018. Thus, he has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's daughter-in-law was one of the applicant, therefore, he is espousing the cause of his daughter-in-law, who was declared unsuccessful.

7. In the humble opinion of this Court, the present writ petition cannot be entertained at the behest of a person, who had not participated in the selection process. If petitioner's daughter-in-law has any grievance, then she is always at liberty to seek judicial redressal of her grievance.

8. In such view of the matter, writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan