IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17591 of 2008 GANESH CHOUDHARY S/O YOGENDRA CHOUDHARY R/O VILL. AWAPUR VIA-BAJAPATTI, PS- PUPRI, DISTT- SITAMARHI -----------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECY. PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS 2. THE IOC LTD. G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400051, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL MANAGER IOC LTD. PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, BLOCK-A MAAURYA LOK COMPLEX DAKBUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA-800001 4. AMRENDRA DAYAL SINGH S/O DIN DAYAL SINGH, G-1 FRIENDS VATIKA HARI SHANKAR VERMA LANE, BORING ROAD, PATNA- 800001 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SITAMARHI, SADAR 7. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DUMRA, SITAMARHI. 8. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI-------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogendra Mishra,Advocate Mr. Raghunath Thakur,Advocate For Respondent (IOC)Mr. K.D.Chatterji, Advocate Mr. Amlesh Kr. Verma, Advocate For Respondent no.4:Mr. Amar Nath Deo,Advocate Mr. Vijay Bharti, Advocate For Respondent nos.5 &8: Mr. Saket Tiwary AC to GP-16 ----------- 2 10.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ application and the petitioner reveal a long protracted battle carried out by him in relation to award of a Kerosene Oil Dealership advertised in terms of annexure-1 to the writ application. Advertisement relates to the year 2000. Three persons were short listed after interview and the merit list published is annexure-4 dated 30th October, 2000. Amrendra Dayal Singh, respondent no.4 was placed at serial no.1, the present petitioner at serial no.2 and Smt. Arun Lata Sharma at serial no.3. The allegation of the petitioner is that award of dealership in favour of private respondent no.4 by the Corporation was illegal because he never was or is a resident of the district for which the advertisement was made. The district in question is - 2 - Sitamarhi. When the petitioner came to know that the private respondent had shown himself to be a resident of Sitamarhi where he had no interest he agitated the matter before the Corporation. According to him respondent has business interest at Patna and there is nothing to show or link him as a resident of Sitamarhi district. The certificates produced by the respondent has been brought on record and dubbed bogus and forged. Two kinds of certificate came to be produced by the private respondent. First certificate furnished by the private respondent purportedly issued by the competent authority was not found so. There is some reflection to show that the certificate was not issued at the level at which it was shown to be. The second kind of residence certificate came to be obtained by the respondent and furnished which too was vigorously contested by the petitioner. Based on the report and input learned Collector of the district cancelled that certificate. The matter also became subject matter of litigation before the High Court not only before a learned Single Judge but also a Division Bench as would be evident from annexure-11 to the writ application. A reading of the said order of the Division Bench would show that the Bench felt that since the Collector had already cancelled the residence certificate, no dispute remained. However it is also evident that a review application had been filed by private respondent against the said decision. The review application was taken up and now an order - 3 - contained in annexure-12 dated 9.9.2008 has come to be passed. By virtue of the review order the Collector has certified that the residence certificate issued on 20.12.2001was valid and correct. The earlier order passed in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2004 stands recalled. This order is under challenge in the present writ application as also the selection made in favour of private respondent. Learned counsel for the Corporation informs the Court that the Corporation had already issued the letter of intent in favour of private respondent and the dealership stood commissioned on 3.1.2006. To that extent the challenge made by the petitioner to the said dealership is only academic. At no point of time there was any restraint order stopping the company from proceeding with the dealership and the selection in question. The date of commissioning is however disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the private respondent in the counter affidavit has denied any wrong doing. He states that only reason why the petitioner has been making false allegations with a hope to dislodge him and stepping into his shoes on the pretext that the private respondent is not a resident of Sitamarhi. He submits that as things stand today, and with the findings recorded by learned Collector in annexure-12, there is no iota of doubt about the petitioner being a resident of Sitamarhi district in question. - 4 - Learned counsel representing the petitioner thereafter submits that there are gaping holes in the reasoning given by the Collector while allowing the review application. He has over looked certain aspect which was already in existence against the private respondent when the earlier decision was rendered by him. Those facts have been intentionally overlooked and he has not given any proper appreciation of evidence to justify the review order passed by him. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that so long as the first residence certificate was not found to be in order the subsequent certificate will not relate back to the initial advertisement. This Court has certain reservation to the extent all these aspects can be looked into and adjudicated by a writ court. The question of residence and otherwise has been looked into by the Revenue Authority and a kind of finding has come to be recorded in favour of the private respondent. These are kind of summary proceeding and not a trial by a civil court for right, title and interest. If that be so then the decision of the learned Collector cannot be tested on same parameters as a judicial pronouncement. The Court therefore as things stand today, coupled with the fact that the dealership stands commissioned almost four years ago with a finding of residence in favour of private respondent would not like to set aside the finding of the Collector. - 5 - If there was incorrect appreciation of evidence by the collector let the petitioner file a civil suit before the civil court of competent jurisdiction and seek declaration against the finding given by learned Collector contained in annexure-12. As of today there is no material for interfering with the selection and the dealership because the matter has been debated, adjudicated and pursued long enough. This writ application stands dismissed with the liberty as above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)