HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA§H AT BILASPUR B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, > l HON’BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR JJ Writ Appeal No 14 ofl 2011 Shn CJK Rao counsel for the appellant _ Shrl Ashlsh Shukla‘ .Gpvt. Advocate for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (1 7‘“ January, 201 1) Per Dhirendra Mishm J " ln response to the advertisement of Annexure Pl3 the appellant and others applied for allotment of drstrlbutorshrp of Liquid Petroleum Gas (for short “LPG') under the Raw Gandhr Gramm LPG Vltrak scheme (for brevrty 3 “RGGLV"). The appellant and respondent No.2 were found suitable and eligible for consideration. However, by draww lot, respondent No2 was I seteoted and the distributorship of LPG was allotted to him. On the complaint l of the appeliant, an enquiry was conducted against respondent No.2. The Enquiry Officer, Vide his report dated 20.7.2010 (Annexure RI1 -5) stated that though the plot level was low, however, respondent No.2 assured to fill it up; no further discrepancy was found, as complained by the appellant. 2. Grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that t the land of respondent No2 did not fulfill the norms as fixed under the ' RGGLV, as is evrdent from‘the enquiiy report. However, respondent No.2 ’ was held to be qualified and eligible for aiiotment of distributorship Learned Single Judge dismissmg the writ petition held that it is cleariy stated in the report that though the plot level was low however it was assured by s respondent No.2 to be flled up, and no further discrepancy was found as hus, contention of the appeilant that complained by the. petitioner. D T Appellant : ‘ghter of Shn JS Ajgalle aged Ku Jam Ajgalle dau Petltioljer’ l about 37 years lresldence of Village Postl Versus Malmaroda Dismct anjglr‘Champa,Ch‘hattisgar‘h. Respondents 1. lndlan Oil Corporé‘tion Through Chief Area Manager Indlal OIllCorporatlon Llmlted Area Office Indian Qll Bhavan Rajeev Gandhi Marge (VIP Road) Post Rawgram Tellbandha Ralpur Chhamsgarh Pm 492006 2. . Thakur Ram Banjare resmlence of Village Post Malkharoda Pollce Station Malkharoda District Jamglr-Champa Chhamsgarh Present @ responcient o 2 does not have the basic faciity wa$ rejected it was further Observed that the appeiiant partimpated in ihe seiection proces: knowmg fuiiy weii the terms and conditions for aiintment thereiore he cannot be permitted to question the iegality and vaiidity sf eeiection of respondent No 2 at this stage and it is not open to the unsuccessful appiicant to chaiienge the selection process after partiCipating iri the sante. t 3i . Learned ceunsei for the appeliant-vehiementiy argued that the finding: of'iearned Single Judge that the appellant cafnnot be permitted to challenge the selection process is without any baeis asithe appellant never challenged: the selection process. The only contention of the appellant is that respondent: No.2 did not meet the norms fixed under RGGLV as the plot of respondent No.2 was not plane; as mentioned in the enquiry report. Respondent No.1 did'not follow the guidelines issued by them vide Annexure Pl5 and respondent No.2 did not have the basic faciiities required for operation of RGGLV. 4. j Heard teamed counsel for the appeilant. Perused the record as also he impugned order. S. i Learned Single Judge after elaborately referrmg to the report of the Enquiry Offcer rejected the contention of the appellant that respondent No 2 didfnot fulfill the norms of RGGLV, as mentioned m the guidelines of Annexure P/5, and further held that the legality and validity of the selection prooess cannot be examined at this stage. The aforesaid finding of the teamed Single Judge is based on detailed examination of the enquiry report andsound principles of law. We find no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is, accordingiy, dismissed. Sd/— i Dhirendra Sd/— Mishia RANGANATH CHANDRAKAR l i l r Judge Judge fl? r an execs N l t