KAVITA KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned Advocate for the respondent/Indian Oil Corporation (in short the Corporation).

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication made to her vide letters dated 06.09.2019 and 09.09.2019, contained in Annexure - 8 and 8/1 to this writ petition respectively, issued by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Patna Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., intimating her that the location for the retail outlet which was advertised was not found to be existing and, therefore, the location was being cancelled with the approval of the competent authority. While communicating this fact, the petitioner was made known that the cancellation of location was based on technical grounds and no fault was attributable to the petitioner and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,000/- which she had deposited as fee was also being returned to her.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid decision of the respondent/Corporation on two grounds. The first ground raised by the petitioner is that in the first instance, the candidature of one Anil Kumar in the OBC category was found to be acceptable and aforesaid Anil Kumar submitted the documents before the Land Evaluation Committee forobtaining "No Objection Certificate" with respect to the land over which the retail outlet/pump was to be put up. On enquiry, it was found that the documents of the land reflected incorrect numbers and, therefore, the candidature of aforesaid Anil Kumar was rejected.