SATENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State of Bihar, Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the IOC) and the counsel for private respondent no.6.

(2.) Petitioner was applicant for grant of dealership pursuant to advertisement dated 17.11.2006, Annexure-1 published by the IOC. His candidature for such grant has been cancelled by the IOC under order dated 28.6.2008, Annexure-5 on the ground that his residency certificate dated 7.12.2006 was cancelled by the Collector, Purnea under order dated 16.5.2008, which was communicated to the Marketing Terminal of the IOC by the Deputy Collector, Incharge, General Section, Purnea Collectorate under letter dated 17.5.2008, Annexure-4.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that neither the copy of the order dated 16.5.2008 nor letter dated 17.5.2008 was served on him. It is also submitted that before issue of the order/letter dated 16/17.5.2008 petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard and as the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled with reference to the order dated 16.5.2008, the cancellation order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness on account of failure to grant opportunity of being heard before cancellation of his residency certificate. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that when petitioner learnt about cancellation of his candidature by the IOC he enquired about the matter and learnt that IOC proceeded to cancel his candidature on the basis of the order dated 16.5.2008 cancelling his residency certificate, whereafter petitioner approached the Collector, Purnea under application dated 3.6.2008, Annexure-6 requesting the Collector to recall order dated 16.5.2008, whereunder his residency certificate dated 7.12.2006 was cancelled. The Collector, Purnea having received the request of the petitioner, Annxure-6 entrusted the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Purnea for enquiry, who issued notice to both the petitioner and respondent no.6, at whose instance the residency certificate of the petitioner was cancelled. Having heard the parties as also the witnesses produced by them, including documentary evidence voter list etc., the Sub-Divisional Officer submitted report dated 9.7.2008, which is contained in Annexure-E to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6. Perusal of report dated 9.7.2008, Annexure-E indicates that both the petitioner and respondent no.6 were heard by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 2.7.2008 along with their witnesses. During the enquiry villagers, ward members and the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat was examined. From the statement of the witnesses examined during enquiry, it transpired that petitioner resided with his cousin in village Tira. Other witnesses, however, stated that petitioner is seen at the residence of his cousin. None of the witness examined during enquiry stated that petitioner has his residence in the village. The witnesses examined stated that petitioner is either residing with his cousin or is seen at hjs residence. It also appears from the report that petitioner purchased 21 decimals of land in village Tira on 1.12.2006 and raised a thatched hut with tin roof over the lands purchased by him. Having noticed the aforesaid aspect, the Sub-Divisional Officer submitted his report dated 9.7.2008 to the Collector on the basis of which the Collector maintained his earlier order dated 16.5.2008 cancelling the residency certificate of the petitioner.