CWP No. 1786 of 1989 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1786 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision November 25, 2011 Madan Lal Balu ....... Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). C.M.No. 15471 of 2011 C.M.is allowed. The writ petition is restored back to its original number. CWP No.1786 of 1989 1. Having regard to the fact that the case is of the year 1989, I directed the counsel to argue the case immediately. 2. The challenge in the writ petition is to the allotment of dealership for S.C. Category. Of the several persons, persons who were tied for consideration were the petitioner and the third respondent. The requisite qualification, included, inter alia that the applicant shall not have more than `25,000/- as annual income. The third respondent produced certificate through a revenue official, as required in the advertisement for income status. Having been found eligible on a relative grading of merit between the petitioner and the third respondent was allotted the dealership. 3. The contention in the writ petition was that third CWP No. 1786 of 1989 (O&M) 2 respondent did not belonged to the same village, while the petitioner belong to the same village. The response by the Corporation was that only if all other things were equal, a preference was to be given to a person of the same village but since in this case on a relative grading the third respondent was found to be more meritorious, therefore the issue of residence did not obtain the consideration; in my view, rightly so. 4. As regards the income status, the petitioner's contention was that the third respondent contended that she was dependent on her father but the father was very affluent having two shops and possessed a large extent of properties. He was also a mortgagee, having lent an amount in excess over `25,000/-. When the petitioner herself was not shown to be possessed of properties and the consideration was on the issue of income, the Corporation was justified in acting on the certification of the revenue officer to find the third respondent as an eligible candidate. I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken in allotting the dealership to the third respondent. 5. Even apart from the consideration of merits, it will be in-exigent to reopen the issue after this length of time. The allotment had been made in the year 1989 and admittedly there was no order of stay. The allottee had ought to have had the benefit and after two decades it shall not be possible to reopen the issue for determination of income status. As an allottee, the third respondent must have improved her own sources of income. It would become irrelevant now for a fresh consideration. The challenge to the impugned decision cannot survive favourable consideration and the writ petition ought to fail and is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 25, 2011 archana