IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COUKT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (eHHATTISGARHl WRI'LPErSIQNfCiNO 5o( /2011. PETITIONER: Ajeet Rumar Soni, son of Madho Prasad Soni, aged about 25 years, residence qf Main Road, Wadranagar, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. versus Respondenfc ,^ ^ ^.>' ^. -€^^ ^y' Indian OU Corporation, Through Senior Area Manager, IndianOil Corporation Lunited.Indanfi AreaOffice, Indian Oil Bhavan, Rajeev Gandhi Marg (V.I.P. Road), Post Ravigram Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. s- WRTT^n'nQNUWDERARTICLE2260Ii"rHE CQNSTrrunoNOF-iNDiA .^*.*:tna%a. •^ .ij>'^&l ^TV, \v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT WRIT PETITION (C) N0.901 OF 2011 Ajeet Kumar Soni Versus Indian Oil Corporation /\FK A Post for pronouncement of orders on the /£3ay ofAugust, 2011 Sd/'- ^ilish K. Agnihotn Judge •V ^ ,--^', •-ti'-. ~J/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT WRIT PETITION (0 N0.901 OF 2011 Ajeet Kumar Soni Versus Indian Oil Corporation (Writ Petition underArtides 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for respondent . ^*. (Delivered on this Ib' day of August, 2011 ) ,1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ or direction to the respondent authorities to consider the application form of the petitioner for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (for short "RGGLV") at Wadrafnagar, District Sarguja under the open category.pursuant.to the advertisement dated 20-11-2010 (Annexure - P/7). 2. Briefly stated facts are that pursuant to the advertisement published in the daily newspaper, Dainik Bhaskar dated 20-11-2010, the petitioner made an application for allotment of RGGLV atWadrafnagar, District Sarguja, giving the details of his property vide Annexure - P/1 and also deposited the requisite fees of Rs.1,000/- along with other apptieants. 3. The Sr. Area Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation (for short "the respondent Corporation") by letter dated 18-12-2010 (Annexure - P/2) informed the petitioner that his candidature has not been found to be eligible for RGGLV, as the petitioner does not have owned land in the advertised location i.e. Wadrafnagar. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation, which was ^D received by the respondent Corporation on 10-1-2011, was also rejected by the respondent Corporation by letter dated 12-1-2011 (Annexure - P/4), on the ground that as per the land document submitted by the petitioner with the application, it is clear that the land bearing khasra No.58 is situated in village Bhagwanpur and not in advertised location i.e. Wadrafnagar. Thus, this petition. Shri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the land specified in the application is owned by the petitioner and the same is situated at village Bhagwanpur within the Nagar Panchayat of Wadrafnagar. The village Bhagwanpur is one of the wards of Wadrafnagar, being Ward No.15 and, as such, the same comes within the location of Wadrafnagar Nagar Panchayat, as is evident from the certificate dated 27-12-2010 (Annexure - P/5) issued by the President, Nagar Panchayat, Wadrafnagar. Shri Rao would further submit that the village Bhagwanpur is about 1 km. away from Wadrafnagar, but the same has been notified to be a part of Nagar Panchayat Wadrafnagar. On the other hand, Shri Shukla, learned counset appearing for the respondent Corporation, would submit that the advertised location was Wadrafnagar and indisputably the land bearing khasra No.58 owned by the petitioner is situated in village Bhagwanpur. Shri Shukla would further submit that alternative & efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to take recourse .under clause 15 of the Brochure on selection of RGGLV (Annexure - R/1), wherein it is clearly provided that if anybody is aggrieved.by the selection process of RGGLV, a complaint can ^ be made to the respondent Oil Company. The petitioner without taking recourse to the said alternative remedy had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Shri Shukla would next submit that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing to explain the deficiency. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation, which was received by the respondent Corporation on 10-1-2011, and not being found satisfactory was rejected and the decision was conveyed to the petitioner by letter dated 12-1-201 1. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 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 particularplace, 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 Centne to satisfy the demand of consumers may be defeated. ^ 10. 11 12. 13. Gowri For the administrative purpose, the village Bhagwanpur may be a ward of Nagar Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, but that cannot be held that the land is situated in Wadrafnagar. The Nagar Panchayat is constituted for the purposes of local administration, which may be comprised of several villages & several localities. Wadrafnagar is one of the localities and as explained Bhagwanpur is another village may be a part of Nagar Panchayat, Wadrafnagar. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the decision taken by the respondent Corporation by not considering the application of the petitioner for allotment of RGGLV. As an upshot, the writ petition is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the respondent Oil Company for redressal of his grievances, as contemplated under clause 15 of the Brochure on selection of RGGLV, if so advised. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- , _ S.tteh^.^otrl ""' Judge