SUNIL KUMAR CHADHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of respondents No.2 and 3, whereby they have appointed Respondent No.4 as a distributor of Bharat Gas under general category at Lad -Bharol Town in the District of Mandi.

(2.) Facts regarding which the learned counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing is that vide Annexure P -1. Respondent No.2 invited applications for the appointment of distributor of Bharat Gas (LPG) under general category vide Annexure P -l. Amongst others one of the conditions, with which we are concerned in the present Writ petition was condition No.2 (e) under heading Eligibility was in the following terms: "(e) Having gross family income (family as defined in the application form) not more than Rs.2,00,000/ - in the last financial year (1999 -2000)"

(3.) Petitioner also applied along with respondent No .4 and other persons. He also appeared for interview before Dealer Selection Board -Respondent No.3 on 26.2.2001 in terms of communication addressed to him vide annexure P -2. Being un -successful he immediately represented Respondent No.2 and 3 by making a grievance that Respondent No.4 Anil Awasthi in whose favour dealership has been allotted has got income more than Rs.2 lacs. According to him said respondent No.4 was working as L.I.C. Agent, was also running a P.C.O. at Lad -Bharol, besides having a Photostat machine as also was running a business in the name of M/s. Bhawani Traders there. Said respondent was also stated having income from landed property at Lad -Bharol and also as being a press correspondent. In this background, they urged vide Annexure P -3 not to issue letter of intent in favour of respondent.