SHAM RAJENDRA AGRAWAL Vs. GHANSHYAM HAJARILAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Nagpur, on an application under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby he rejected the application filed by the applicant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows - Non-applicant no.1-Ghanshyam instituted a civil suit against the applicant/defendant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation as well as Dealers Selection Board. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation had issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for dealership of kerosene at 20 different places in Vidarbh region. Katol was one of the places where the dealership was to be assigned and it was not in the reserved category. The non-applicant/plaintiff submitted an application complete in all respect with the defendant no.1. It is the job of defendant no.2 . Board to select the candidates on consideration of various aspects. One of the members of such Board is a retired Judge of the High court. In this case, the Board was headed by District Judge instead of High Court Judge and only two members acted as members of the Board instead of three. It is contended that, therefore, the selection is vitiated. After the interviews, the list of candidates in order of merits was published and it was found that the name of applicant/defendant no.3 was at Sr.No.1. In fact, defendant no.3 was not eligible for allotment of the said dealership. The selection of defendant no.3 was challenged by the non-applicant/plaintiff on various other grounds. Being aggrieved by the selection of defendant no.3, the plaintiff had instituted writ petition No.1155 of 2002. The said writ petition came to be dismissed in limine. A Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Supreme Court. That also came to be dismissed in limine. It is after dismissal of these petitions that this suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the allotment of dealership to defendant no.3 was illegal.

(3.) The defendant no.3 in that suit filed an application under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that since writ petition was dismissed by the High court and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court, those decisions operated as res judicata and the present suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The learned judge of the lower court did not find favour with what was alleged by the defendant and he rejected the application under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Being aggrieved by that, this Civil Revision Application is preferred.