IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 282 of 2011 Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others ….…….. Appellants Versus Sudhanshu Tyagi ............... Respondent Present: Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 14th December, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) In the advertisement, it was indicated that the intended agency will be accorded to “Churiyala (Tejpur)”. The respondent/writ petitioner is from Churiyala Mohanpur. His application was rejected on the ground that he was not a resident of Churiyala (Tejpur). This rejection was challenged by filing a writ petition. That writ petition has been allowed accepting the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Bhagwanpur that there are two revenue villages, namely, Village Tejpur and Village Churiyala Mohanpur. The learned Judge recorded a finding that there is no village or town by the name “Churiyala (Tejpur)”. The learned Judge thereupon directed consideration of the application of the respondent. While doing so, the learned Judge felt that the appellant has confused the issue by recording two revenue villages for being given the agency. As it appears to us, the finding of the learned Judge is that there is one village by the name Tejpur and another village by the name Churiyala Mohanpur. Therefore, the advertisement may be an incorrect advertisement giving the name of a non-existing village. Because the word “Churiyala” was used, while denoting the name of the village in the advertisement, it could not be concluded that 2 Churiyala Mohanpur was also intended to be one of the villages to which the advertisement referred. It was the specific contention of the appellant in its counter affidavit that the respondent was not from Tejpur and, accordingly, he was incompetent to offer himself for the agency. Therefore, from the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants, it would be evident that the appellant proceeded on the basis that whoever is a resident of Tejpur and intends to set up the agency at Tejpur would be entitled to respond to the advertisement. This contention on the part of the respondent may or may not be correct. However, in the absence of mentioning of the name of the village of the respondent in the advertisement, question of coming to a conclusion that the advertisement also intended to encompass the said village, according to us, is not acceptable. 2. We, accordingly, interfere with the order under appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal. The merit of the writ petition could be decided by us provided the person belonging to Tejpur, who has been selected for the agency, was before us. In his absence, it would not be appropriate on our part to decide the merit of the writ petition. We, accordingly, have no other option but to remit back the matter, which, we, accordingly, do, with a direction to the respondent to forthwith implead the person belonging to Tejpur who has been selected for the agency. 3. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 14.12.2011 14.12.2011 P. Singh 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 367 of 2011 Vikas Bahuguna ….…….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ................ Respondents Present: Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent No.1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 14th December, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are certain latent defects in the writ petition and, accordingly, he seeks permission to withdraw the same with liberty to file a fresh writ petition for the selfsame relief. Such liberty is granted upon the petitioner depositing costs of `1000/- (Rupees one thousand) with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, which shall be utilized for mediation purpose. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 14.12.2011 14.12.2011 P.Singh 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 368 of 2011 Smt. Kamla Chanyal ….…….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ............... Respondents Present: Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 14th December, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) Let the representation of the petitioner, lastly made on 17th October, 2011, seeking transfer from Jainti to Haldwani, be decided in accordance with law and, in particular, taking into account the Government Orders dated 29th May, 2008 and 17th January, 2011 as quickly as possible but not later than one month from the date of service of a certified copy of this order upon the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. The writ petition is disposed of. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 14.12.2011 14.12.2011 P. Singh