SingEg tagmh @(96 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ . WRIT PETITION (C) No. ég¢56I2011 PETITIONER : / ASHWANI KUMAR KHANDE aged about 39 years, Son of shri Mithailal Khande R/ o Pamgarh, P.O. Pamgarh Tah.— Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir—Champa(C.G.) 495556 ‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ;/'1. UNION OF INDIA, Through—Chairman 86 Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum I Corporation Limited, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai~400020 /2. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, L.P.G. Bottling Plant, L.P.G. Regional Office, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur (C.G.) 492101 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AFQ («y 303:”. H EEGH C(‘R IRT SF CHHA'fTl-SGARH AT RH ,ASPUR VVRET PETI’E‘H‘IN { 1‘; N0. 6486 m"2m 1 ?ET§T¥F3NER ; Ashwam _\_i_ima.r Khmda VER SE TS RESPONDEN 3x. : Ulaion of Lndia & Omen, WRET ?ET1’1‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TEE CONS'HTUHON OF ENDEA SB: Ema’hk Shri Szmgh K. Agaihak'i. J. E15 haxi an ammlni af 1h 2 lacs OL L5 dam af yuMicatim offka advsriisemém gig, 22.1L32G11 ami ‘dso 110?. 011 mg (iaié efm i ma apg‘yli g 19/61 I? :‘hé ' ‘ ann‘iicatimi a =— of‘ihe g3stitim16r was rgjected 0:1 twg gmmdx a x13 22‘G42Q11 {Ammxure i Wesem‘: Shri Ashok Swamakarw Advoca‘te fer “the pemioner. (31m; “1“,: ,f‘ an. 17 T'awvJ 1 iw’al 1. (‘éiwAL omimnig' C‘3E11‘1Sm «1 £V‘é1‘,‘ L03 um uihml Y :-.— Cu , .i‘I- Liidia/ '! Isspondam No: 1: f3 R E} E R {Ehsgeai 9a 93a §aJ $f NG‘JsmiEsf, 2Q”) Chalimg€ in this mtitim is it: ilj wiér ‘aiad $L1€L2G11 {Ajmémre 39/8) whareby the pgtitiemii’s agapECa‘iioa far albimén‘i 0f Rajiv Gamiiai G’ramizl H’G dgalarshjn {féir she??? ‘REGLV‘; at Pangah; wa< mjemed on the gromié ‘ihaj; ai‘tlne fime 0f fiéié vegificaiian it was fluid that 'ihe gatiticnér 6&6; 301‘ have mirimum amoum'. of R: 2; lacs cm. ihf: :iaE of 911b1icatien 0f advertisemw‘i (Armexrrg W3) 0:1 2116363) m 19:? damé 3&2. of La adv‘artiwmwi. 2: SE11: gwamarr‘ iéamed gmmsal apgjsaiing fer the Qatitiariey 311bmits thai me gétiii 11m submitiad a siatsmgm Cnf accmlm damd 14 “12011 (AJmexum P/4-L).§ (m ihai 61mg; he hm mom mar; Rs, 2 bar»? accoum but 311:3 plaiifimzer iS‘ mbtfu}. mm whakthsr h) ’aiion/family Emil. (iii mt e 1 f mriised iocaiim? secomily; tile pgtitiimer did 11m h imum aé ad min amm QfRS: 2 iacs in s bamx: account ThamEe 0 mx E afr. awarding i ’ Sim Samakag a gietitioner as founcl as gud appiicatien conskiarad fer d of f RGGL was raw aeleL' n V $1133w§uam1y5 by thr: imgmgmd istiér dated 9110:2911 mm (Amw W3; on. verif’isa‘ tha cadidaiwra of ths getitin was t ai n‘ar cceilad on thg ave stated grounds: T3137 ons fha p‘iiner an ab 11 e efin Aha camiiéamm ofthg eiiiid is mews mad maj pmr, *m is iw pgarmv O M; i 13.x. ~¢ ptiblicaiion 0f the advsrtisemem Le. 221i12019 anti aim 0n ihé dam 0f making aypiicatian m, 22,11,2Gi0. tha pe‘iififmer diii not ham the mini-1mm amoum Vf Rs 2 lass m his bag}: accmmt. as réquired 1111612: clause 3(‘i, (if ihé advgzfisemém. Though ths ‘ation of {m gaetitioger was mitiaEy taksn into conskiaai'ion m 131$ time of draw of 1013: hm on subsequem field Vtz‘i‘ catiom fhe defect a‘: aforestaie& was naticed and the caadidamre n? fhe petmmer was rejected There is 110 error £11 the impugged (mier and the decision takem by the ailthoxiiiew is just and yrogmeri warranting no interfereme 4, Gn yemsai of the ,documents and having gemsidered rivai submissions advanced by ihe learned cmmsel for the paz‘iieei §§1e . facts are a" “ed that. guisuaa to the aévei’tisemem; tke faeth‘ioner d, made ax: applicatiosa for ailotmeni of dea§ershi9 on 22. 31 Zdm bgen found m quifiéci the subs‘gqm1 décisicm. zejécfin(m (1H!1LEU‘“her-_.i'i\; ha i .LE'LI', 5 I -i i W'ari‘ 1am. e EdQ;_ial1d:i’ia 3 $3 EIOUIE- ‘ Q“ G; a! 1 th l L)L {mien Lf Lndéa/rgsigoiidgm N9; 1 submiis ”air; on thé (We of ; c i mv 8nd in he w th w ali£ie as iiis ha< al 1 c i RQ 2 lacs aithar in his bank. accmmt. or any imiéstmem iii any aha“ foxm as réguiréd. undm‘ dausg 3(f} 0f 1116 advmissmém wag availabié with him, Evgn béfora this Cmxrt alsg ma gsatiti‘mar R unable to <8T1<fy tha Court on the fan‘i that even en the iimte of making anpiieatiein the petitioner ban nfenmnm balance of Rs: Z lacs in ms nank; accoum“ On nemsal GHhe bank statemem annexed at Amemre Pill-L dated 1838201 L ihe petitioner had enlv Ra 4458,66 in his hank account and only on 01:99.2{31 1: an amount. of Rs. 2 Eaves was denosned to make ‘ilie balance as R3 2Q§4,458,66> Tim (ioes not hold the p cr eiigibie from any noint ofview ae e n the eash was deposited only on 91,Q9K2O11 when the inst daie of advertisement was 22‘1i},2{}10 and the application for allotment. of deaieiahin was made on 22,16,231f), Ewen ihe depositing of cash of Rs 2 iaes in one go makes the financial capacity of {he neiitioner doubtful The petitioner nan faiied to iiiifiil ihe conditions required nnéer cianse 3(f) of the adveriiseinent inns; his oandidanlre was righiid. rejected, 5: Ln View ofine foregoing and for the reasons sniffed hereinabover the writ petition is devoid .f merit and is acoordingly dismisseii, , u SdL Satish K. Agnihotri' Judge Amit . .r r H, W