LAWS(CAL)-2024-4-217

SUBHODEB CHAUDHURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 18, 2024
Subhodeb Chaudhuri Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the Order dated March 14, 2019 as passed in WP No. 14441 (W) of 2018 as passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed by the appellant who was the writ petitioner before the Writ Court. By the impugned order learned Single Judge considered the subsequent report of BL&LRO regarding location of the proposed showroom of the private respondent no.9 and found no infirmity in the action of the respondent no.2/Oil Company and thus dismissed the said writ petition.

(2.) In support of the instant appeal learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant at the very outset submits before this Court that though the present appellant was initially selected for draw of selection of the LPG Distributorship but subsequently the writ petitioner/appellant was found to be disqualified. It has been contended further that from a reliable source the writ petitioner/appellant came to learn that the private respondent no.9 also failed to fulfill the criteria for obtaining LPG Distributorship and accordingly the candidature of the private respondent no.9 was cancelled. However in a clandestine manner the private respondent no.9 was again selected despite the protest raised by the writ petitioner/appellant pointing out the discrepancies regarding the location of the showroom of the private respondent no.7.

(3.) Drawing attention to page nos.54 and 54A of CAN 4654 of 2019 it has been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant that the respondent no.2 made a communication dtd. 28/11/2016 with the respondent no.7 wherein the respondent no.7 categorically stated that the proposed land for showroom of the private respondent no.7 is not in the advertised location, Baisnabnagar. It is argued further that all on a sudden the respondent no.2/Oil Company relied on a certificate dtd. 10/4/2018 purportedly issued by the BL&LRO, Kaliachak, Malda and thus granted the said LPG Dealership to the writ petitioner in utter violation of the guidelines for selection of regular LPG Distributorships.