SANGEETA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Basti to issue final No Objection Certificate in the light of the Government Order dated 18- 12-2002 so that the petitioner may be able to carry on dealership of kerosene oil. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed not to modify/cancel the order dated 18-12-2002. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) IT is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that in pursuance of an advertisement dated 24-6-2001 inviting applications for allotement of dealership of Kerosene Oil by respondent No. 4 Bharat Petroleum Corporation, the petitioner also applied. IT is alleged that the petitioner was duly qualified in all respects and was an educated unemployed graduate. One of the conditions of eligibility was that the applicant should be a resident of district Basti for at least a period of six months prior to the making of the application. The other condition was that the application or if he/she is dependent on his/her parents then the gross income for the relevant year ought not to be more than Rs. 2 Lakhs. IT is alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition that the petitioner was eligible as she was staying with her father at Basti.

(3.) IT is alleged in paragraph 28 of the petitioner that the order dated 5-10-2001 was passed behind the back of the petitioner without offering any opportunity of hearing to her. Hence she filed Writ Petition No. 33145 of 2001 in this Court and the Court passed a Stay order on 10-10-2001. Thereafter affidavits were exchanged and the petition dismissed by judgment dated 13-11- 2002, which has been quoted in paragraph 29 of the writ petition and has also been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 33145 of 2001 dated 13- 11-2002 shows that the petition was dismissed on the ground that a finding of fact has been recorded in the enquiry that the petitioner does not live in Basti but she is living in Gorakhpur with her husband. This was a finding of fact based on relevant materials and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence this Court held that it cannot interfere with this finding of fact in writ jurisdiction. IT may be mentioned that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed in view of the report of the Task Force Committee. IT is alleged in paragraph 31 of the writ petition that other authorities had given report in favour of the petitioner and hence the respondent No. 5 exerted political pressure to get the matter enquired through a Task Force Committee to harass the petitioner. Hence the petitioner made a representation to the State Government vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. IT is alleged in paragraph 32 of the writ petition that many authorities had given reports in favour of the petitioner and hence the respondent No. 5 by exerting political pressure got an order dated 17-9-2001 issued by the Commissioner Basti Division whereby a direction was given to re-enquire the matter through the Task Force Committee. True copy of the said order dated 17-9-2001 is Annexure-13 to the writ petition.