1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. J U D G M E N T Miss Raj Kumari Fanat (Meena) v. Union of India & Ors. D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.493/2001 against the judgment dated 28.03.2001 passed by learned Single Judge. Date of Judgment :: 24th July, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.P.GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Sunil Beniwal, for the appellant. Mr. Narendra Singh ] Mr. SP Arora ] for the respondents. Mr. Jitendra Chopra] .... BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR,J.) The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate in process of selection for award of retail outlet dealership for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., sought the relief of quashing grant of dealership in favour of the respondents No.5 and 6 on the count that the same could have not been awarded to both of them being not resident of District Udaipur. 2 Learned Single Judge, while rejecting petition for writ, held that the condition relating to necessity of the residence in the District, where dealership was required to be given, was bad in view of clause(2) of Article 15 of the Constitution of India and as such that is required to be ignored and no restriction could have been made relating to grant of dealership on basis of place of residence. While challenging the judgment impugned dated 28.3.2001, it is contended that the classification made by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. by putting restriction for grant of retail outlet dealership on basis of place of residence is rational and in no way that is hit by constitutional provisions. As a matter of fact the issue sought to be examined in this appeal is of no consequence in view of the averments made by the respondents No.5 and 6 in the written filed by them. The respondent No.5 in specific terms stated that “she is a bona fide resident of Udaipur District and is residing at Udaipur since long. The answering respondent was enrolled as a student in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur way back in the year 1994. She is settled at Udaipur since long. A copy of the bona fide residence certificate issued for the petitioner by the Assistant Collector, Head Quarters, Udaipur on 3 31.3.1993 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/1. It is relevant to submit that even after submission of the application, the oil company has also inquired into and obtained the report from Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur who has specifically shown that the residence certificate has been issued for the petitioner after verification of the residence by reference to such emphatic and direct evidence that : (1) name in Ration Card; (2) name in official voter list; (3) husband being in government service; and (4) residing in government accommodation at Udaipur. It is relevant to submit that the answering respondent has specifically submitted the certification of residence with the application form which was certified by the Tehsildar, Girwa and the Additional District Magistrate, City, Udaipur”. Similarly, the respondent No.6 also stated that she is permanent resident of Udaipur District and to substantiate the same she also placed on record a certificate issued by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Fatehnagar, Sanwad, District Udaipur. This factual position has not been rebutted by the appellant petitioner. In view of the factual position above, we do not find any merit in this appeal that may warrant interference with the order passed by learned Single Judge and also with the decision impugned taken by the 4 respondents No.2 to 4 with regard to grant of retail outlet dealership. The appeal is dismissed accordingly with no order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N.P.GUPTA ),J. kkm/ps