_.l_ fmgk“ @cmxah ‘;;%%Qi;..‘1ii"HE $6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Q Q~ §$ \ WRIT PETITION (C) No. a 77 LI 12011 f Mrs. Vandana Devi Heda, W/o Shri Pawan Heda, Aged about 32 years, R/o Shiv Mandir Road, Kunkuri, District — Jashpur 496-225 (CG) Versus >1. ' Indian Oii Corporation (A Maharatna Company) Raipur Area Office; Marketing Division, Through its Senior Area Manager, Rajeev Gandhi Marg, Telibandha, P.O. Ravigram, Raipur 492—006 (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Respondent ;:; gal; * HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION IC) NO.4774 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Mrs. Vandéna Devi Heda V RESPONDENT (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Sigle Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Sri K. Sharma, Advocate forthe petitionert h Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for the respondent. ersus Indian Oil Corporation (Pased on this 5 dy of September, 201 1) By ts petition, the ptitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the communication dated 27-7—2011 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the candidatue of the petitioner for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Kunkuri, District Jashpur, under open category advertised on 2-10—2010, has been rejected. 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits‘that pursuant Ito the advertisemet dated 2-10-2010 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner aplied for RGGLV‘ After considering the sad application of the petitioner, he respondent authorities asked the petitioner to produce documents in respect of certain lands. The petitioner complied with all the directions issued by the respondn authorities from ime to time. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to remain present with a photo identity card issued by any of the Governmen Department on 5-5-2011 in the conference hall of Collectorate, Jashpur. Accrdngly, the petitioner appeared before the authorities and in presene of all the participants, the lottery process was initiated, in which the petitioner was successful n ORDER s th a hi e r n 2 p i t et t t oi c . Thereafter, by letter dated 30-5-2011 (Annexure — P/7), the petitioner was advised to offer another land in Kunkuri that belongs to the petitioner or to any member of the famiiy as per the definition of famiiy unit and date of registration of the land offered should be before or on the date of application. The petitioner duly replied to the said letter along with the requisite documents. However, all of a sudden by letter dated 27—7-2011 (Annexure — P/1) the, candidature of the petitioner has been rejected in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 6-8-2011 to the respondent authorities, ho'wever, according to the petitioner, without considering and deciding the same the respondent is proceeding ahead to hold another draw. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, by filing return, submits that the details of land mentioned by the petitioner along with her application i.e. the land bearin khasra No.213/20 in the name of petitioner’s husband was found to be dimensions of 11.5 m x 35 m. and the same does not meet the minimum size requirement as per norms i.e. 20 m. x 24 m. Thereafter, the respondent gave proper opportunity to the petitioner to offer another land at Kunkuri vide letter dated 30-52011 that belongs to the petitioner or to any member of her family as per the definition of family unit in the advertisement and the date of registration of land offered should be before or on the date of application. Shri Shukla further submits that though the petitioner offered another land bearing khasra No.213/18 in the name of the petitioner, but the registration of the sale deed, mutation, etc. were after the date of submission of application, whereas according to g the advertisement, the offered land should be in the name of family unit or in the name of applicant before or on the date of application. The petitioner did not fulfill the common eligibility criteria as per the policy; therefore, her candidature was rejected. Shri Shukla next submits that against the impugned order, the petitioner preferred a representation. The same has been rejected, but the same has not been challenged by the petitioner. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Clause (g) of the advertisement reads as under : WWWsYmWWW mssgfasmarmmd’rmemw wawzomaxgthaw mamqjimwhmmstl (El?) msmmwsm/W mm/Wmq :mf It W ‘WW'$WW$W aamw-wmmsastml 11W W’$ Wm/ 'tm—W$W#WWW WWGItQWmHssYWIt §$mq§aamvsar$mma 4mm war HT mamas-war t? q$WwohWw®m¢h€ ugatmmstaft‘qaswaaws‘t trawrw It shit misc, W1? W? ‘msa aims UTER' graham at swans Wes‘fstd’tmlsmWI—cite urstransra/Hst/W/ma ast' Ila—Ft 8. In clause 6 sub-ckause (6.1) (v) of the Manual for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV), the ‘family unit’ has been defined as under : ‘Family Unit’ in case of married person/applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). ln case of unmarried person/applicant, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). ln case of divorcee, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, ‘Family Unit‘ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s) / unmarried daughter(s), Admittedly, the petitioner applied for RGGLV on 22-1 1-2010 along with certain documents, Subsequently, the details of land bearing khasra No.213/18 were supplied. The said land was in the name of mother-in—law of the petitioner. One upharnama dated 12-2—2010 has been filed by the respondent from which it appears that the land bearing khasra No.213/18 has been gifted by the mother—in—law of the petitioner to the petitioner, which was not duly notarised document, according to Shri Shukla. 10. Since the upharnama was not duly notarised, it cannot be said that the upharnanfa was genuine. (See : Moumita Poddar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another1). 1 1 (2010) 9 scc 291 i 11. Even otherwise, about the upharnama the petitioner has not stated anything at the time of making application, which is evident from the letter dated 6~8~201 1‘ (Annexure — P/11) written by the petitioner to the respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a copy of the registered sale deed with regard to the land in dispute, but the same has been executed after filing of the application by the petitioner for RGGLV on 22—11-2010. Thus, the subsequent registered sale deed is of no relevance. According to the Clause 6 of the Manual for selection of RGGLV, the mother—in—law does not come within the definition of ‘family unit’. If it is a case of upha'rnamagas pleaded by the petitioner, there was no question of getting the sale deed registered in favour of the petitioner subsequently on 22—1 1-2010, ln View of the above, the impugned action taken by the respondent authorities is just & proper and does not warrant any interference. Even othen/vise, the petitioner has failed to prove her case, As an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. /. p > Sd,/_ Kg Saush K. Agniho‘tri l J‘ Judge \