BHAGWAN DASS Vs. KAMAL ABROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These three appeals have been preferred against the common order and final judgment dated 21-8-2002 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 13/97, 14/97 and 103/97. The appeals arise on the following facts : That respondent No. 3, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, is a Government of India Undertaking and respondent No. 2 is the Oil Selection Board. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the Union of India had intended to open a retail outlet for the distribution of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) in Kangra town of the State of Himachal Pradesh and for that purpose it had invited applications for allotment of dealership/distributorship for LPG through notice published in the newspaper on 14-8-85. The notice of inviting dealership/distributorship rights provided for certain eligibility criteria, which the applicant should possess. The criteria provided that the applicant should be an unemployed graduate, resident of Kangra district, family income not more than Rs. 24000/-, having no close relatives as a dealer or distributor of any oil company and the applicant also should not be a partner or having dealership or distributorship agency in any petroleum corporation company. The appellants viz., Bhagwan Dass and Ashok Kumar applied jointly as partners along with other applicants. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Kamal Abrol and respondent No. 5 Shri Abhay Singh had also applied for the said dealership/distributorship rights. There were other applicants also along with these applicants. The Oil Selection Board called the appellants and respondent Nos. 1 and 5 for interview as their applications were found prima facie falling within the criteria laid down for selection. The interviewing Selection Board recommended their names to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in form of a merit list that consisted of respondent No. 1, respondent No. 5 and the appellants in the order of merit. Respondent No. 3, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (HPCL), had issued letter of intent to respondent No. 1 and she was directed to complete certain formalities to make the allotment in her favour. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Corporation, the appellants filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the allotment. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge on the point that the remedy does not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution and the appropriate remedy would be to approach the Civil Court. Pursuant thereto, a civil suit was filed by the appellants impleading all the present respondents as party defendants, claiming relief that the decree for declaration be issued that selection of respondent Nos. 1 and 5 by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is wrong, illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside and, therefore, letter of intent dated 3-3-88 for allotment of LPG dealership/distributorship of HPCL issued in favour of respondent No. 1 is wrong, illegal, null and void and does not confer any right, title and interest upon respondent No. 1 for allotment of dealership/distributorship of LPG at Kangra. The appellants had claimed further relief in form of a mandatory injunction seeking direction to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to allot the LPG dealership/distributorship at Kangra to the appellants. After trial the civil suit filed by the appellants was partly allowed. The trial court gave decree of declaration that respondent Nos. 1 and 5 could not be allotted the dealership of LPG at Kangra as they didnt fulfill the required eligibility criteria. It was held that the respondent No. 1 was not a resident of the Kangra Distt. and hence did not fulfill the mandatory requirement. However, the trial court dismissed the suit claiming mandatory injunction for giving distributorship of LPG to the appellant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, cross-appeals were filed by both the appellants and the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 5 was also a party in appeal along with other respondents.