RIFAT JABEEN Vs. UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice inviting applications for appointing LPG distributors of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited under various categories at locations specified in the notice within the State of Jammu and Kashmir was issued and published in a local daily in its issue dated 12042007. The petitioner was one of the candidates for such distributorship for the Pattan area mentioned at serial No. 6 of the advertisement notice.

(2.) As per the averments made in the Petition, she was called for interview on 28092007 and the results were declared on the same day. It is contended that the petitioner stood first and was declared to have secured 92 marks. It is, however, alleged that the respondents were instead interested in one Mst. Mymoona Banoo D/O Ghulam Mustafa Yatoo R/O Sultanpora, Pattan, who filed a civil suit before the learned SubJudge, Pattan. Along side, she filed an application for interim relief wherein an order of status quo was passed by the Court. Consequently, the petitioner's appointment as distributor could not be made. However, ultimately, the application was dismissed on merits on 19112008, which order was upheld by the appellate Court. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court reserved the right of the respondents to look into the complaint, if any, made by the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, that is, respondent No. 8 herein.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that in the advertisement notice, a condition was incorporated with regard to requirement of showroom, which prescribed that showroom as per the standard layout can be constructed in a shop/land located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location for LPG distributorship and should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road. A separate clause for construction of Godown was also incorporated. It is submitted that petitioner already possessed a shop since 2004 in the trading area on National Highway, which fell within the operation area at Pattan and that its owner had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner in respect of the said premises long back. The petitioner was issued the letter of intent dated 16102009 and while her case for obtaining requisite licenses from different concerned authorities was in process, the Municipal Committee, Pattan asked the petitioner to obtain no objection from the Beacon authorities who are maintaining the National Highway on which the showroom of the petitioner was located. The Beacon Authorities denied the permission to her, which constrained the petitioner to relocate the showroom and, in that behalf, she made a communication to respondents 1 to 7. Petitioner requested and offered the alternative sit for construction of showroom/godown which was rejected by the respondents.