SUSHIL KUMAR SON OF BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HINDUSTAN Petroleum Corporation Limited a Government of India Enterprises and a Public Sector Undertaking advertised for appointment of retail dealership of L.P.G. at Ram Nagar in the District of West Champaran. Petitioner Sushil Kumar and respondent No. 5 Raman Kumar Mishra were amongst two of the applicants for the same. Applications and other papers of the applicants were scrutinized, applicants were interviewed and a panel was prepared by the Selection Committee of the Corporation. In the said panel petitioner Sushil Kumar was empanelled as the first candidate and respondent No. 5 Raman Kumar Mishra was empanelled as the second candidate. Before letter of intent could be issued by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner Sushil Kumar, respondent No. 5 Raman Kumar Mishra filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2004 before this Court in which he has challenged the empanelment of petitioner as the first empanelled candidate and pleaded for his disqualification. The Corporation was also a party to the said litigation.

(2.) IN the said writ petition, a prayer for interim relief was made but not pressed. Raman Kumar Mishra, the petitioner of that writ petition had challenged the empanelment of Sushil Kumar on the ground that though to the Corporation Sushil Kumar disclosed to be the son of one Birendra Kumar Sharma, he was in fact the adopted son of one Narendra Kumar Sharma though naturally born son of Birendra Kumar Sharma. Birendra Kumar Sharma and Narendra Kumar Sharma were own brothers. Narendra Kumar already had a petroleum dealership. In terms of the relationship clause which barred dealership being given in close proximity of relations, Raman Kumar Mishra pleaded that Sushil Kumar should have been debarred and held to be ineligible. These assertions of Raman Kumar Mishra in the said writ petition were based on certain pleadings in Title Suit No. 63. of 2000 which was pending before the Munsif, Bettiah, West Champaran. The said title suit which was filed by Smt. Nutan Devi, wife of late Narendra Kumar Sharma against Birendra Kumar Sharma @ Birendra Kumar, Sushil Kumar who was shown to be the son of Birendra Kumar Sharma (not Narendra Kumar Sharma) and wife of Birendra Kumar Sharma @ Birendra Kumar. Smt. Nutan Devi the plaintiff claimed certain properties to be her property on the ground that the said property was purchased by her father -in -law in the name of her son, Sushil Kumar who died at the age of two years. Thus plaintiff Nutan Devi firstly showed the present Sushil Kumar to be the son of Birendra Kumar and then pleaded that she also had a son Sushil Kumar who died when he was only two years old. In the said title suit the present Sushil Kumar who was defendant No. 2 appeared and set up a plea that Sushil Kumar as mentioned in the sale deed was in fact the present Sushil Kumar who was the naturally born son of Birendra Kumar Sharma but had gone in adoption to Narendra Kumar Sharma and the plaintiff 'sstory that Sushil Kumar was her child who died at the age of two years was false. The plaintiff in her rejoinder denied the story of taking the present Sushil Kumar in adoption and pleaded that Sushil Kumar was taking a plea of convenience to usurp her property which she was entitled individually after the death of her child Sushil Kumar and her husband Narendra Kumar Sharma. The written statement of the present Sushil Kumar in the said title suit was the basis for the said writ petition. In the said writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2004, the Corporation appeared and filed counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit they defended their selection as being rightful and not vitiated on any ground. They specifically stated that the present Sushil Kumar had submitted inter alia his matriculation certificate drawn up more than ten years before the dealership was advertised, issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna which showed that the father of the present Sushil Kumar was Birendra Kumar Sharma. They referred to the Voter 'sIdentity Card, Voter List and the Passport of present Sushil Kumar to show that he was in fact the son of Birendra Kumar Sharma and not of Narendra Kumar Sharma. They also referred to a probate case being Probate Case No. 11 of 1982 which was disposed of by the learned District Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah on 23.5.1985 more than fifteen years before the site was advertised for the dealership. In the said probate case in respect of property of the father of Birendra Kumar Sharma and Narendra Kumar Sharma certain properties were to go to present Sushil Kumar. Sushil Kumar was shown as the son of Birendra Kumar and the probate proceedings were duly signed, acknowledged and accepted by both Birendra Kumar Sharma and Narendra Kumar Sharma.

(3.) IN the said counter affidavit of the Corporation, it is clear that the Corporation was not oblivious of the said Title Suit No. 63 of 2000 in which Sushil Kumar had pleaded to be the adopted son of Narendra Kumar. It would be useful to quote Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit of the Corporation in the said writ petition which reads thus: - "That similarly the reference of Title Suit No. 63/2000 relating to ownership of a piece of land in which respondent No. 5 has made assertions to the effect, that he is adopted son of Narendra Kumar Sharma cannot be acted upon as the matter is sub -judice wherein, validity of adoption may also be adjudicated till such adjudication is made by a competent Court the Corporation cannot act upon it."