WPMS/247/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 1044 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                      AT NAINITAL
          ON THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
                            BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


       WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 247 of 2022

BETWEEN:

Smt. Praveen.                                     .......Petitioner
      (By Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate)

AND:
Indian Oil Corporation & others.                 ....Respondents

      (By Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram
      Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for
      respondent nos. 1 & 2)


                         JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner, along with 16 candidates, applied for allotment as Rural Retail Dealer. Allotment was made through draw of lots in which respondent no. 4 was successful. Petitioner has now challenged allotment of Rural Retail Outlet, made in favour of respondent no. 4, on various grounds.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Mr. Tribhuwan Pandey, Chief Manager (Retail Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Dehradun. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that challenging the self-same allotment in favour of respondent no. 4, petitioner's father-in-law filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 527 of 2021, which was dismissed. It is further stated that one Mr. Dheeraj Pal, who was one of the candidate in the

selection for the same Rural Retail Outlet, also filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 332 of 2020 raising similar issues, which was dismissed by this Court, by a detailed judgment dated 22.07.2021.

4. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 submits that the issue raised by petitioner in the present writ petition has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 332 of 2020, filed by Mr. Dheeraj Pal. Thus, he submits that present writ petition deserves to be decided in terms of the said judgment.

5. From perusal of paragraph nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the writ petition, it is revealed that issues raised by petitioner are similar to those raised in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 332 of 2020. In paragraph nos. 5 and 8, petitioner has referred to the representation made by her father-in-law. In the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that writ petition filed by her father-in-law has been dismissed. It is thus apparent that petitioner was aware about earlier writ petitions filed at her behest and after their dismissal, she has filed this writ petition.

6. Even otherwise also, the issues raised by petitioner are decided in judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 332 of 2020.

7. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference in the matter.

8. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin