PREM PAL SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.05.2010 passed in CWP No.10524/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking to question the award of LPG distributorship at 4 places in Barmer District. The petitioner-appellant submitted in the writ petition that he was given the distributorship of Indane Gas at Balotra District Barmer under the Para Military Personnel category; that his gas agency was falling under the rural category having total customers to the tune of 9,600 in the span of 10 years of operation; that the average re-filling sale was of 5551 cylinders per month; and that he was supplying the cylinders in all the nearby villages. The petitioner stated the grievance against the advertisement dated 17.10.2009 whereby the respondents proposed to grant new distributorships and wherein were included 4 new agencies in the region at Jasol, Gudamalani, Asotra and Indrana. According to the petitioner, in all these 4 locations, he was providing new gas connection on demand and there was no waiting list and the re-filling sale had not yet touched the figure of viability mark of 6000 cylinders per month; and with opening of these 4 new agencies, all shall share about 2000 refills of cylinders per month and, thus, not only the new one shall be unviable, the petitioner's agency shall also become unviable.

(2.) The learned Single Judge found no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction particularly for the petitioner having no right to prevent his principal petroleum company from opening new outlets and observed that the petitioner has agreed to the opening of other outlets in the area by signing agreement with the principal. The learned Single Judge was also of opinion that the decision had been taken by the petroleum company to provide LPG gas to rural public and the new outlets were going to serve such public cause. The learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition while noticing and observing thus:

(3.) It is true that petitioner being son of a person of paramilitary person got the Gas Distributorship, but he himself was knowing it well that new and more dealers can be appointed even by his own gas supply agency. In view of this fact alone, the petitioner cannot have an locus standi to challenge the decision to give more outlets in the area. Be it as it may be, another contention of the petitioner is that there is limit fixed by the respondents themselves that for the town upto 10 lacs of population, the dealer can distribute cylinders upto 8000 and since the petitioner has not achieved that target, therefore, no new outlet can be opened is also of no help to the petitioner because of the reason that said circular clearly mentions that, that will be the revised ceiling limit of making available of cylinders to the dealer and it nowhere says that unless this target is achieved by one dealer no new outlet will be opened. From perusal of the scheme it is clear that the location of setting up LPG Distributorship are required to be done in accordance with the scheme after examining potential of average monthly sale of 600 LPG cylinders of 14.2 kg and 1800 customers with monthly per capita consumption of about 5 kg and in the light of the other considerations referred in the scheme. It appears from the manual for selection of the distributorship under the Scheme that the issue of supply to the rural areas have been considered and it has been observed so :