CHANDANA MONDAL Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order relates to controversy with regard to residence of party respondent at the time of applying for dealership for the location at Jhantipahari in the district of Bankura. Apparently applications were invited for appointment of dealers under Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitarak Yojna Only the permanent residents of the advertised location were entitled to apply for dealership. As on the date of submitting the application that is the last date of application on 16th November, 2009 the applicant must be a permanent resident of the advertised location in order to have a dealership in question. Apparently along with an application, residential certificate issued by the local Panchayat was submitted by the party respondent. But by the time the papers that is the application and relevant documents were verified, he produced certificate of residence issued by the Sub Divisional Officer which apparently subsequent to the last date of submission of application. Based on the information and being satisfied what is stated by the Sub Divisinal Officer regarding the residence of the party respondent, the Oil Corporation seems to have approved the application of the party respondent.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the writ petitioner approached the learned single Judge questioning the legality in approving the application of the party respondent on the ground that the information and satisfaction of his residence based on the Sub Divisional Officer's certificate was subsequent to the last date for submission of application. Therefore, there was no justification in approving the application of the party respondent. Learned Judge opined that on the date of verification of the records including the certificates, he was able to establish residential certificate pertaining to the location he applied for. Therefore, there was no illegality whatsoever. Therefore, the writ petition came to be dismissed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the appellant is before us, reiterating not only the contention that the Sub Divisional Officer's residential certificate ought not to have been taken into consideration, since it was issued on a date subsequent to the last date of submission of the application but also brings to notice that the very same Sub Divisional Officer withdrew the said residential certificate on the ground that it was issued on mistaken facts.