RADHA KISHAN TAKWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that Respondents No. 1 to 3 may be restrained from awarding dealer -spip of retail out -let of petrol and high speed diesel on Hanumangarh Road at Sri Ganganagar.

(2.) THE petitioner is resident of Sri Ganganagar. Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement which was published in daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' for grant of dealership/out -let for sale of petrol and high speed diesel The out -let was required to be established between a mile stone of 1.5 km. to 2.5km. to Hanumangarh Road at Sriganganagar. The advertisement further required that the applicant must be having an educational qualification as Matriculate or its equivalent. He should not have any close relation with the person engaged in dealership or distribution of any oil company. It was further required that the applicant should not be less than 18 years and he should not be more than 50 years of age on the date of application. The application was required to be in the proforma. The petitioner applied and he was called for interview. Thereafter, some correspondence transpired and that the petitioner felt assurred that he was likely to be granted dealership. It is further averred that the Sales Officer Shri R.N. Talwar visited Sri Ganganagar and made an enquiry from the petitioner whether he is involved in any case of Essential Commodities or not. The petitioner could not get any answer as such he made enquiries and it was found that respondent No. 3 made recommendation for allotment of dealership to respondent No. 4. It was further revealed that respondent No. 4 did not file the application in the proforma. The petitioner submitted that respondent No. 4 was not entitled for a dealership because the maximum age limit for grant of dealership was 50 years on the date of the application and the respondent No. 4 was above 50 years of age the date of application. It was further submitted that on Vinay Kumar son of respondent No. 4 is having the retail out -let dealership of the respondent at village Kenchia District Sri Ganganagar. The dealership is working in the name and style of Highway Filling Station, Kenchiya. The petitioner made a representation on these lines. It is submitted that on 22 -2 -1986 the petitioner came to know that the respondents No. 1 to 3 are granting dealership to respondent No. 4 though he is disqualified and is not entitled for it. In this back ground the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. After considering the arguments I am of the view that this case does not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has emphasised on two aspects namely, regarding age, relationship of respondent No. 4 with one Vinay Kumar who is said to be dealer of oil products of respondent No. 2. So far as the relationship of Vinay Kumar with respondent No. 4 is concerned the same is not disputed. But the answering respondent No. 2 Indo Burma Petroleum Co. has very categorically said that Vinay Kumar is not its dealer in any respect. Therefore, this argument does not cut any ice.