MANOJ MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Gautam Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by Sri J.P. Sharma Chief Area Manager of the Corporation by means of which the candidature of the petitioner for grant of LPG distributorship at Rampur Bazar, District Jaunpur under category GP has been rejected.

(2.) IN pursuance of an advertisement published by the respondents for appointment of LPG distributorship the petitioner submitted his application on 25.11.2011 for award of distributorship at Rampur Bazar, District Jaunpur under GP category. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 31.1.2013 on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner did not belong to the category for which the distributorship in question was reserved and secondly, that the petitioner did not have any land for godown and showroom in the advertised location as the lease deed of the land offered by the petitioner was not registered.

(3.) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per clause 7.2 of the brochure it was only when a Government or Public Sector Personnel mentioned in clause 7.2 of the information brochure died while performing his duty his widow/ dependent was eligible for being considered under the GP category. Since the father of the petitioner had admittedly died due to prolonged illness it could not be said that he died while performing his duty and as such the petitioner was not eligible to be considered under the GP category. Insofar as the land offered by the petitioner is concerned, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per clause 7.1 of the brochure the petitioner was obliged to have a registered lease agreement for minimum 15 yrs in his name as on the date of application which the petitioner admittedly did not possess and as such the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be rejected. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the provisions of Clause 9.5 of the brochure were not attracted in the case of the petitioner in as much as even if an opportunity had been given to the petitioner the defect could not be removed.