PRASANTA KUMAR PANIGRAHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for a direction to opposite party No.1-Union of India, represented through its Secretary, Petroleum & Natural Gas Department, New Delhi, opposite party No.2- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., represented through its General Manager, Mumbai and opposite party No.3-Territory Manger (LPG), Bhubaneswar LPG Territory, 33 Industrial Estate, AT/PO/Dist: Khurdato grant LPG distributorship in favour of the petitioner for Dharakote village and to quash the letter dated 08.09.2010 (Annexure-8) issued by opposite party No.3 by which the petitioner has been required to submit the details of the land along with supporting documents as required under the guidelines for Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitarak (RGGLV) and Clause- 3(g) of the advertisement within ten days from the date of the letter, failing which, the petitioner's candidature is to be treated as cancelled.

(2.) Petitioner's case in a nutshell is that an advertisement was issued by opposite party No.2 in the Oriya Daily 'The Sambad' dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure-1) inviting applications for grant of LPG distributorship in different areas including the one for Dharakote in the district of Ganjam under RGGLV Yojana. Pursuant to the said advertisement, eight candidates have filed applications for distributorship under open category along with the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted all the required documents as per the advertisement along with his application. All the eight applications were verified/scrutinized by opposite party No.3 and after verification, the petitioner was found as the only eligible candidate among them. The other applications were rejected as those failed to fulfil the eligibility criteria. Opposite party No.3 had issued a letter on 09.02.2010 for submission of details about the land owned by petitioner in the advertised location. The petitioner has submitted photocopy of the registered sale deed before opposite party No.3 on 24.02.2010. Select list dated 12.03.2010 is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. After the 2selection was made, the Company carried out field verification to check the documents filed along with the applications on 16.04.2010. During field verification, the petitioner had shown all the relevant records and the place where he has proposed to construct the godown which comes under Mouza: Khamara Paitari under Dharakote village. Being asked by opposite parties, the petitioner submitted a report from the Revenue Inspector concerned which clarified that the land of the petitioner is situated under Dharakote village. In spite of the same, the opposite parties issued letter dated 08.09.2010 (Annexure-8) wherein it was indicated that the petitioner's candidature would be cancelled as the land on which godown is proposed to be constructed does not come within the purview of village Dharakote. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application form submitted by the petitioner fulfils all the eligibility criteria on the basis of which the petitioner was selected. Due to misinterpretation made by opposite party No.3 about location of the place proposed by the petitioner for construction of the godown, the selection is going to be cancelled. In the advertisement, it was specifically indicated that the candidate should have a piece of land measuring at least 20 metres x 24 metres in dimension in Dharakote. Dharakote Tahasil consists of three Mouzas, namely, Kapilas, Khamar Paitari and Ambedabanhill. At the time of field verification, though the above fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party-Company officials, they did not accept that Khamar 3Paitari comes under Dharakote and instructed the petitioner to obtain a certificate in that regard from the R.I., Dharakote. Pursuant to such instruction, the petitioner obtained a certificate from the R.I., Dharakote under Annexure-6 in which it is certified that Khamar Paitari comes under Tahasil Dharakote. The said certificate was sent to opposite partyCompany on 23.04.2010. It was further submitted that pursuant to advertisement under Annexure-1, the petitioner made an application in which the name of the place has been shown as Dharakote. Annexure-10 issued by the R.I., Dharakote of the Revenue Department shows that the village Dharakote is consisting of three Mouzas, namely, (i) Kapilas, (ii) Khamar Paitari and (iii) Ambedabanhill and the land owned by the petitioner for construction of the godown comes under village Khamar Paitari. Therefore, opposite parties are not justified to say that the land owned by the petitioner is not within the area for which advertisement has been made.