LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-89

MANISH KUMAR NAGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 18, 2012
MANISH KUMAR NAGAR Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Matter has come up on application filed by the respondent u/Art. 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex parte interim order passed by the court dated 31.1.2012. However, with consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard at this stage.

(2.) The respondent-corporation issued an advertisement dated 17.10.2009 (Anx.I) for distribution of LPG dealership for several different locations including Nagar Fort, District Tonk under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vikrak scheme ("RGGLV") for which the petitioner was one of the applicant for location Nagar Fort, District Tonk mentioned at serial No. 76 of the advertisement and after fulfillment of the conditions was found eligible and qualified for selection and the respondents called the eligible applicants vide their letter dated 7.4.2010 to remain present during the draw proceedings which were scheduled to be held on 28.4.2010 and on that date itself, selection letter was issued to the petitioner Anx.4 and at the stage of field verification of credentials furnished was examined in terms of the advertisement. It revealed that the documents submitted by the petitioner of the subject land were not of the advertised location in terms of advertisement, and accordingly, decision was taken by the respondents and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 5.1.2012 (Anx.7) that on field verification of credentials furnished by the petitioner regarding subject land is not acceptable. The extract is quoted here ad infra:

(3.) Counsel for petitioner submits that the subject land offered by the petitioner might have been at village Udaipuria, Tehsil Deoli, Dist.Tonk, but the said land is situated at a short distance from the location as demanded by the respondents and that being so the ground which was made a basis by the respondents while taking decision vide their letter dated 5.1.2012 eliminating name of the petitioner on the basis of subject land offered is not at the advertised location, is not sustainable in view of documents and evidence which have come on record.