LAWS(HPH)-2025-12-90

KANTA KUMARI ALIAS KANTA THAKUR Vs. JYOTI THAKUR

Decided On December 17, 2025
Kanta Kumari Alias Kanta Thakur Appellant
V/S
Jyoti Thakur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal against judgment dtd. 7/10/2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 9773 of 2011, titled Jyoti Thakur vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., vide which the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 herein (for short "writ petitioner"), hereinafter referred as writ petitioner has been allowed; and order dtd. 28/10/2011 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.2- Corporation(Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.), hereinafter referred as Corporation, was quashed and set aside and the Corporation was directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner, for allotment of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., on Khasra No. 994.

(2.) The appellant was not a party in the Writ petition, but since she had applied for allotment of gas agency in question vide application dtd. 3/11/2016, preferred the present appeal along with an application seeking leave to appeal. This Court vide order dtd. 3/1/2017, was pleased to allow the application seeking leave to appeal by holding that the appellant is aggrieved party and prima facie appears to have been affected by the impugned judgment.

(3.) The writ petitioner had laid challenge to the rejection order dtd. 28/10/2011, whereby the Corporation had been pleased to cancel her candidature for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (hereinafter referred as 'RGGLV') at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., on the ground that the first plot comprised in Khasra No. 1005 offered by her, was not found suitable for the construction of godown as the same is less than the minimum required dimensions of 20 x 24 meters; the second plot comprised in Khasra No. 994 was also not found suitable for the construction of godown as the same is not approachable, because it is covered on all sides by the land owned by others; and the third plot bearing Khasra No. 1003, offered by the writ petitioner was not found owned by her or by any other members of the family unit as given in multi distributorship norms.