SHILPA KHAKHOLIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for striking out of the name of the Respondent No. 6, who has been placed as the First Preferred Candidate in the Merit List dated 15.12.2010 for award of LPG Distributorship at Hojai with a prayer for a further direction to the respondent Corporation to place the petitioner as first preferred candidate for the said distributorship and to issue letter of intent as well as final order for awarding such LPG Distributorship in favour of the respondents.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she is an educated unemployed lady. An advertisement was issued in an English daily newspaper, namely, "THE Assam Tribune" on its 1st December, 2009 issue by the Respondent No. 2 and two other Companies for award of LPG Distributorship at 17 places in the State of Assam. 7 locations out of aforesaid 17 places including that of Hojai under Sl. No. 12 of the said advertisement was relatable to Respondent No. 2. THE LPG Distributorship at Hojai was meant for Open (Woman). for short OP (W). THE writ petitioner responded to the said advertisement by submitting her application with all related documents for award of the said LPG Distribution. She was called for interview to be held on 15.12.2010 and, accordingly, she and many other candidates had appeared before the Selection Committee and on that very date, a Merit List was prepared by the Selection Committee in order of merit. THE petitioner having secured 92.37 marks, was placed at 2nd position and the Respondent No. 6 was placed in the 1st position showing that she had obtained 93.33 marks.

(3.) BY filing a reply affidavit, the writ petitioner has stated that the husband of the Respondent No.6 is operating an LPG dealership and she had been granted a Gas Licence under the Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004 on 09.03.2005 with its validity upto 30.09.2013. BY filing an additional affidavit, the writ petitioner has asserted that by taking recourse to Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner had come to learn that 11 Nos. of National Savings Certificates and 4 Nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates issued by the United Bank of India are encumbered and the respondent authorities, without verifying the documents furnished by the Respondent No.6, awarded her 35 marks, to which she was not entitled. The Respondent No.6 responded by filing an affidavit-in-opposition to the additional affidavit of the writ petitioner wherein, while denying the allegation levelled against her regarding issuance of licence on 09.03.2005, stated that the said licence, in fact, was issued in the name of the Branch Manager, STATFED on 09.03.2005 and the said licence came to be transferred in her name by an order dated 04.03.2011 of the Deputy Chief Controller of the Explosives. It has further been stated that in the advertisement dated 01.12.2009, it was not indicated that the Fixed Deposit Certificates, National Savings Certificates/Kishan Vikash Patras should not be pledge or charged with any one and in any view of the matter, the amount of the Fixed Deposit Certificate, National Savings Certificates, Kishan Vikash Patras which are encumbered is very insignificant. She had provided information for arranging fund to the tune of Rs. 32.78 Lakh and a candidate is entitled to get full marks i.e. 18 marks, if he/she is able to provide supporting documents of Rs. 18 Lakhs.