IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17035 of 2010 Munna Kumar, son of Ganesh Ram, resident of village- Kotwa, P.O. Manguraha, P.S. Paharpur, District- East Champaran ………………………… Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India 2. The Ministry of Gas & Petroleum Department, New Delhi 3. The Chief Manager/Director of the Hindustan Petroleum Ltd., 17, Jamshedjee Tata Road, Mumbai- 40020 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Post Box No. 40, Dak Bangla Chauk, Patna- 1. ………………… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. B.J.Ojha, Advocate For the U.I.O.: Mr. Rakesh Kumar-1, Advocates For the HPCL: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. ----------- 2. 8.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent-authorities for selection of the petitioner regarding award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak (RGGLV) at location Paharpur in the district of East Champaran under S.C. category advertised on 17.10.2009 as also for setting aside the order dated 23.8.2010 by which his application has been rejected. The petitioner on the basis of the advertisement 2 dated 17.10.2009 applied for RGGLV at the above location under the said category. The petitioner being the single eligible candidate after scrutiny of the applications was declared as selected by order dated 20.7.2010 holding that no draw for selection of RGGLV is required for the said location as there is only one eligible qualified candidate. Subsequently, by letter dated 23.8.2010 of the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Patna he was informed that during the field verification of information provided by him in his application form, a major discrepancy was observed which is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 17.10.2009 and undertaking given by the petitioner in his application form as it was found that he (being married) is not having own land in the advertised location. It was also informed to him that as a result he had lost his position/candidature. The said letter also mentions that his candidature/application was rejected as he was found to have supplied incorrect and false information. It was further stated that during the field verification process he had participated and signed the fact finding report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3 land in question being Khata No. 293, Khesra No. 1637, area 4 kathas 5 dhurs at village Kotwa, Thana Paharpur, District-East Champaran was purchased by his father by registered sale deed and is in fact, the property of the joint family which has come into the share of the petitioner on family partition. It is submitted that the affidavits filed by his father and brother also support the said fact. It is urged by learned counsel that in view of the said statements on affidavit the authorities of the Corporation ought not to have rejected the application of the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was found duly qualified and accordingly he was allotted the RGGLV by letter dated 20.6.2010. It is urged that earlier by letter dated 24.12.2009 the petitioner was informed that his candidature was not eligible as he did not have the land in the advertised location nor he was resident of advertised location and directed to submit his representation by 16.1.2010 and after being satisfied by the petitioner in this regard the order of selection dated 20.7.2010 was issued in his favour and therefore, there is no occasion for the authorities to have 4 again come to a different conclusion in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the selection of candidate is made on scrutiny of the application and on the basis of information that may be given by him. The said selection however, according to them, is subject to field verification which is made in the presence of the candidate himself. It is submitted that during the field enquiry it was found that he did not own land in the advertised location as required. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the ownership of the land belongs to the petitioner’s father who has only stated in his affidavit that he had no objection if the godown/showroom was constructed over the said land. Thus, from the said affidavit it cannot be said that the petitioner is the owner of the land. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has been unable to show from the documents on the record that as a matter of fact, he has ownership over the land in question. The best person to have made the said statement was the father of the petitioner who does not utter even a word 5 regarding the land being a joint family property and there having been a partition in which the said land had gone in favour of the petitioner. He has merely stated that he has no objection to the godown/showroom being constructed on the said land. It is evident that the land was purchased in the name of the father of the petitioner but there is no material to show that the petitioner became the owner of the land. The rent receipts issued by the Circle Officer which has been relied upon by the petitioner and the land ownership certificate also do not show that the petitioner is the owner of the land. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the action of the respondent-Corporation in issuing the impugned letter dated 23.8.2010 suffers from any infirmity or is arbitrary, unreasonable and whimsical. This Court in its writ jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities and is only concerned to see that the decision making process is free from illegality. In the present matter, the respondents have come to the conclusion after field verification, as per the guidelines of selection of RGGLV issued by the Oil Company, which has to be done after the selection. The norm is that the selection is to be 6 made only by draw of lots and prior to the same eligibility is only considered on the basis of the scrutiny of the applications filed by the applicants. There being only one eligible candidate, namely, the petitioner at that stage, he was selected but the same was subject to field verification. If in the field verification the authorities have found that the petitioner does not have ownership of the land, then this Court would not interfere with the said decision particularly when the petitioner is unable to place on the record any unimpeachable documents that he has ownership over the land in question. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)