GHANSHYAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and for respondent No. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to cancel the L.P.G. distributorship of respondent No. 3 under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak Scheme (R.G.G.L.V.) for Village- Gamharia in Madhepura District. The petitioner as also respondent No. 3 and others had applied for grant of distributorship under R.G.G.L.V. Scheme pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.2.2011 for location Gamharia in the District of Madhepura. In the draw of lot that was held, the respondent No. 3 came out as the successful candidate. The claim of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 did not have land in his name for the location on the date of allotment of L.P.G. distributorship and thus the allotment is illegal.

(2.) In the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is clearly stated that the respondent No. 3 had submitted his application on 30.3.2011 and after submission and scrutiny of application, he was asked by the respondent H.P.C.L. to submit a consent letter from the co-owners of the land and in response to the same, he had submitted the consent letter on oath dated 9.5.2011 before a Notary of all the other co-owners. It is, thus, submitted that respondent No. 3 fulfils the requirement in terms of the revised Guidelines issued under the Industry Record Note on Modifications/Clarifications with regard to the Selection Process of R.G.G.L.V. dated 15.6.2010, in which it was clearly provided that if the share of the land in the name of applicant/family member of the 'Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm, meets the requirement including the dimensions required and he has obtained consent letter from the other co-owners of the land (family members from joint family), the land should be considered for eligibility and if the consent letter from the other owners of the land is not attached as part of the affidavit, the same should be asked for when the letter is sent to the applicant in format 11b.

(3.) It is also the stand of respondent No. 3 that after submission and scrutiny of his application, he was asked by H.P.C.L. to submit consent letter from the co-owners by letter dated 22.4.2011 and in response to the same, the consent letters had been submitted and thus, the respondent No. 3 did have the land of the dimension as per the norms laid down in the guidelines.