IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6825 of 2011 Ashok Kumar Gupta, son of late Dhrubji Prasad, resident of village Purani Bazar (Manjha), P.S. Manjha Garhi, District Gopalganj … Petitioner Versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd through its Chairman, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra, (East) Mumbai-400051(India). 2. The Chairman, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra, (East) Mumbai-400051(India). 3. The Regional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. 4. The Senior Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., First Floor, Shashi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. … Respondents ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate and Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kali Das Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate & Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate -------- 08/ 05.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing of letter no. PAT/RGGLV/172 dated 06.01.2011 issued under the signature of Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `IOCL’ for the sake of brevity ) whereby the petitioner has been informed that his candidature has not been found to be suitable for award of distributorship as it is found at the time of field verification that the land offered by the petitioner is not suitable as offered plot (24x15 meters) is not as per requirement (20x24 meters). It is further mentioned therein that the petitioner has not met the eligibility criteria i.e. (i) “owned a suitable land in the advertised location as on the date of application” and - 2 - accordingly the candidature of the petitioner for award of the distributorship is cancelled. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondent authority to award distributorship of LPG for the location Manjha in Gopalganj District in favour of the petitioner. (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondent authority to. conduct a fresh investigation pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner before the respondent authority and to take appropriate action in accordance with law by withdrawing/recalling the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner for distributorship (iv) For holding that the petitioner having owned a land measuring 22 x 24.75 meters (3 kathas and 14 dhoors) at appropriate place for distributorship against the requirement of 20 x 24 meters, is eligible for the same and as such the cancellation of his candidature is absolutely, void, illegal and unsustainable. (v) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for commanding the respondent- authorities to produce a copy of the investigation report and thereafter to quash the same. (vi) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for restraining the respondents for holding the draw again from the remaining qualified eligible candidates to select the next candidate in view of clause 12.10 of the Brochure. (vii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ, or direction which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 3 - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an advertisement was published on 17.10.2009 in the Hindi daily newspaper “Dainik Jagran” jointly by the Oil Companies including Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (I.O.C.L) proposing appointment of eligible candidates as distributor of LPG in terms of the provisions of the advertisement as well as the Information Brochure belonging to different categories for various places in various districts including the location Manjha in Gopalganj district under category of C.C. ( Combined Category ). 4. The petitioner sent his application dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure 7) for the said location in the prescribed format accompanied with necessary documents within the time prescribed as a physically handicapped person falling under the combined category (C.C.) and sub-category physically handicapped (P.H.). In the said application, the petitioner offered a land measuring an area of 22 meters x 24.75 meters of plot no. 63/863 situated at Danapur Road, Manjha. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 19.03.2010 (Annexure 3), the respondents sent a letter to the petitioner informing him that he has qualified for the draw for selection of RGGLV and directing him to be present along with the Photo Identity Card issued by any Government department for draw on 10.04.2010 at 11A.M. in the I.O.C.L. Patna. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on the said date, whereafter he was declared successful and selected as per the selection procedure - 4 - prescribed under Clause 12 of the Brochure. It is also averred that thereafter field verification was made, regarding which no information was sent to the petitioner and all of a sudden on 06.01.2011 (Annexure 4) the respondents sent a letter to the petitioner informing him that his candidature was not found suitable for award of distributorship as the land offered by him was not suitable being only 24 meters x 15 meters, which was not as per the requirement, namely, 24 meters x 20 meters as had been specifically found at the time of the field verification. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner avers that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was on nonest ground as the petitioner had more lands by way of lease granted by his father and the lease deed had already been attached to the application. He also states that the said lease hold land was not considered by the authorities as is apparent from the impugned order itself. He argues that the purpose and object of the concerned distributorship is continuance of business uninterruptedly and in this case the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by his father himself, which can also be considered as his no objection. He further claims that so far the self acquired land of the petitioner is concerned, only a small portion is short of the required measurement, which can be easily fulfilled by the lease hold land, which is situated in the same plot, namely, plot no. 63/863. Hence, he submits that the impugned order of the authorities is fit to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the - 5 - respondents refers to Clause 4(g) of the Brochure, which provides that the applicant applying for RGGLV should own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 24 meters x 20 meters in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG Cylinder Storage Godown. It is also provided therein that own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the `Family Unit’ as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm and in case of ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon Clause 4 (e) of the said Brochure, in which `Family Unit’ has been defined in case of married person and also in case of unmarried person. The petitioner, admittedly, being a married person, the definition of “Family Unit’ as applicable to a married person has to be considered. It is provided in the said Brochure that in case of married person/applicant, the `Family Unit’` shall consist of individual concerned, his/her spouse and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the lease is not contemplated either in the Brochure or even in the advertisement (Annexure 1) vide Clause 3(anga). He also submits that in the said circumstances, the requirement is that the applicant must be the owner of the land offered by him and the petitioner is the owner of only 20 meters x 15 meters of the said plot as has been found during the field verification and the same has not been denied by the - 6 - petitioner. Hence he submits that the claim of the petitioner is absolutely frivolous and misconceived and is fit to be rejected. 10. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, specially the clauses of the Brochure and the clauses of the advertisement, it is quite apparent that the lease hold lands cannot be legally offered by the candidates. Furthermore, the `Family Unit’ of a married person cannot include his father. In the said circumstances, the petitioner had quite rightly offered in his application dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure 7) only self acquired land as is apparent from column 9 thereof, in which the applicant has not been mentioned as a lessee rather he has been mentioned as the owner of the land himself. Mere annexing of some documents with the application does not mean that the lands involved in those documents are included in the offer made by the applicant unless it is specifically mentioned in the application. 11. Since the father cannot be included in the `Family Unit’ of a married person as per the prescribed provision, the lease deed of the father cannot even be legally presumed to be his no objection for the purpose of such offer. Hence the authorities rightly did not take into account the alleged lease hold land at the time of field verification and they specifically found that the petitioner was the owner of only 20 meters x 15 meters land in the said plot. This fact has not been denied and hence the said finding is quite legal and proper specially when there was no occasion for the authorities to consider any lease hold land. - 7 - 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the said order of the respondents dated 06.01.2011 (Annexure 4). Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)