© IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C.) NO^.l.u^...OF 201 1 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Madhuri Agarwal D/o, Shri Ghasiram. Agarwal, aged about 23 years, R/o. Village 85 Post & Tahsil Dabhra, Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.), VERSUS 1 .-^ Bharat Petroleum Corporation \^/\-f\ / \^..v:\y *T ^x^y ^AM ^ /ysvy ci' / /<?• / Bharat Petroleum Limited - Through the Chairraan/ Managing Director, Retail Outlet. 4 8s 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B.No. 688, Mumbai- 400001. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through manager (A Government of India Enterprise) Raipur LPG Territory Office, Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Commercial Complex, 1st Floor, Nagar, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Territory Manger (LPG) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (A Governinent of India Enterprise) Raipur LPG, Territory OfGce, Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Commercial Coraplex, 1st Floor, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 1 WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COUNSTITUTION OF INDIA^ The petitioner above-named most respectfully subrnits as under: 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the cause title above. <^/ ^// fe'/ .t.!l ^c HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRLT PETjTIQN_(CLNa5l09_OF_20l1 Madhuri Agrawal Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 2nd day of September, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 25-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the application ofthe petitioner for award of LPG Distributorship at Sheorinarayan District Janjgir-Champa under CC category advertised on 22-4-2011, has been rejected on the grounds that (i) the petitioner do not have liquid funds of Rs.10.00 lacs and (ii) the land for showroom is not in adveri:ised location. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to permit her to participate in the selection process of LPG Distributorship. 3. ContentiQp of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement for the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner applied on 21-5-2011 along with the requisite documents, which was duly accepted by the respondent authorities, as is evident from letter dated 7-7-2011 (Annexure P/3) and allotted the application serial number i.e. RPR/SHIVRI/02. Even the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs, which is evident from the certificate i 2J^ dated 21-5-2011 issued by the Allahabad Bank (Annexure P/2). However, all of a sudden, by impugned order dated 25-7-2011 the candidature ofthe petitioner has been rejected in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10-8-2011 (Annexure - P/5) stating that she has again deposited some more amount in the Bank and as on 8-8-2011 the Bank balance was Rs.12,76,500/-. The map of the land has also been filed, but till date no action has been taken by the authorities. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the requirement of having Rs.10.00 lacs in liquid funds has not been satisfied, as the petitioner had failed to establish that at the time of making application or during consideration, the petitioner was in possession of liquid funds of R.s.10.00 lacs. Subsequent deposit in the Bank, as is evident from the certificate dated 8-8-20121 is of no relevance. Even the land in question was also not situated at proper Sheorinarayan, wherein it was decided to have LPG Distributorship for the convenience of local population. It is not in dispute that on the date of passing of the order dated 25-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) the petitioner was not in possession of Rs.10.00 lacs in the form of liquid funds. According to the petitioner, as on 8-8-2011 she was having bank balance of Rs.12,76,500/-. The petitioner has failed to show that on the date of making application how much liquid funcfs, shewas having in her possession. .:~\. ^r 9. Gowri So far location of the land is concerned, the area fixed for LPG distributorship is proper Sheorinarayan, whereas the petitioner is having land at village Bhogal para, Sheorinarayan. On this point, this Court in Ajeet Kumar Soni v. Indian Oil Corporation , after considering all the aspects of the matter, observed as under: "8. This petition involves disputed question of facts, as the LPG Distribution Centre should be closer and nearer to the population for which the same was advertised. Even if it is presumed that the village Bhagwanpur was a part of Nagar Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, the location required was not in Wadrafnagar, but outside Wadrafnagar, it does not mean that any other village of Nagar Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, be treated as Wadrafnagar. There is no dispute that the land wherein the petitioner proposed to open the LPG Distribution Centre was situated in village Bhagwanpur. 9. It is for the respondent Corporation to decide that the LPG Distribution Central be located in a particular place, which can cater the needs of the consumers. If the place, as is evident in the instant case, is 1 km. away, the consumers may be forced to go away at village Bhagwanpur for LPG. The purpose of having LPG Distribution Centre to satisfy the demand ofconsumers may be defeated." In view of the above, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the decision taken by the respondent Corporation by not considering the application of the petitioner for award of LPG Distributorship at Sheorinarayan District Janjgir-Champa under CC catego'ry advertised on 22-4-2011. As an upshot, the writ petition is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. s^^^ab0w jud&e ' WP (C) No.901 of 2011 (decided on 16-8-2011) iiit'