MAMATA MAYEE SAHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to an advertisement-dated 1.9.2000 published in news paper by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Opp.party No.2) inviting applications for allotment of dealership of retail outlet of Petrol and Diesel in different places of Dhenkanal district including Motonga, the petitioner, opp.party No.4 and many Others applied for the said dealership in respect of village Motonga. As per the selection made by Dealer Selection Board (opp.party No.3), opp.party No.4 was placed in serial No.1, one Indramani Swain in serial No.2, while petitioner was placed in 3rd position of the select list. It was stipulated in the advertisement that preference would be given to the local residents.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, even though opposite party No.4 is a permanent resident of village Suhagpur under Hemagiri Police Station of Puri district, the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal illegally issued him a certificate on 20.9.2000 vide Misc. Certificate Case No.324 of 2000 certifying that even though he is a native of village Suhagpur, P.S.- Brahamagiri under Puri district, ordinarily he resides in village Govindaprasad, P.S. Dhenkanal (Sadar) under Dhenkanal district. In a common order, in Misc.Appeal Nos.3 and 4 of 2002, the Sub-collector, Dhenkanal confirmed the order of the Tahasildar and dismissed the appeals. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order passed in the said Appeals and to set aside the decision of opposite party No.3 in selecting the opposite party No.4 for allotment of dealership of Petrol and Diesel in Motonga and to pass any suitable order.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in fact opposite party No.4 is a permanent resident of village Suhagpur, P.S. Brahamagiri under Puri district. Copy of the voter list of the year 1995-96 of Brahamagiri reflects the name of opposite party No.4 as a voter of that village, so also the copy of the voter list of the year 2000-2001. No doubt opposite party No.4 filed Ration card, Savings Bank Account and some other documents to establish that he is a resident of village Govindaprasad, but all those documents having been created after the material point of time i.e. October 2000 ought not have been taken into consideration by the Tahasildar and Sub-collector, Dhenkanal. Admittedly opposite party No.4 has married in village Govindaprasad under Dhenkanal district, but it alone can not be sufficient to hold that he ordinarily resides in that village, particularly when he himself has stated in Annexure-2 to the writ petition that he is a full time worker of Bharatiya Janata Party and at present works as office Secretary of the said party in respect of the State of Orissa. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision Bhagawan Dass and another v. Kamal Abrol and Others; A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 2583.