Civil Writ Petition No. 12962 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12962 of 2001 Date of decision: 28.02.2011 Surender Pal Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, with Mr. HP Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was aspirant for allotment of a retail outlet at Village Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur has filed this writ petition to challenge the allotment of the retail outlet in favour of respondent No.4- Inderpreet Singh. The primary objection of the petitioner is that the retail outlet has been wrongly and unfairly allotted to respondent No.4 though he was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of residence as was specified in the advertisement. Civil Writ Petition No. 12962 of 2001 -2- An advertisement was issued on 22.6.2000 inviting applications for allotment of retail outlet dealership, which were to be filed on or before 11.8.2000. One of the place where retail outlet was to be issued was Village Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur. One of the eligibility condition for allotment of this retail outlet was about the residence and applicants were required to be resident of District concerned of the location mentioned in the advertisement. Since the advertisement at Sr. No.3 related to District Hoshiarpur, the applicants were required to be a resident of District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner being fully eligible had applied for allotment of retail outlet. His application was processed. The petitioner appeared for interview. However, the allotment was made in favour of respondent No.4, which the petitioner has challenged through the present writ petition. As per the petitioner, respondent No.4 was not eligible as he was not resident of Village Chabbewal or of District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner, therefore, served a legal notice on 29.5.2001 on the Deputy Commissioner Hoshiarpur and the SDM, Hoshiarpur, pleading that respondent No.4 was resident of Phagwara, District Kapurthla. The petitioner also made a request to respondent Nos.5 & 6 to hold an inquiry in this regard. The petitioner did not receive any response to his complaint. He accordingly, has approached this Court by pleading that the facts in this case would clearly reveal that respondent No.4 was not eligible being not resident of District Hoshiarpur. In support of his plea, the petitioner would make Civil Writ Petition No. 12962 of 2001 -3- reference to the income tax return filed by respondent No.4 for the year 2000-2001, where he has given his address as 306, Urban Estate, Phagwara. The petitioner would also refer to voters list for the year 1999, wherein the name of respondent No.4 appeared at Sr.No.274 and also of a voters list issued in the year 2000 showing similar position. The petitioner has referred to the application submitted by father of respondent No.4 for obtaining a ration card. A matriculation certificate of respondent No.4, was also obtained from TWEI High School, Phagwara. The petitioner also submits that the residence proof submitted by respondent No.4 was undated and has, accordingly, challenged the selection of the respondent on this ground. Separate replies are filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4. No reply has been filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2. Respondent No.3 would plead that it is not a function of this Court to hear the case as if it is deciding an appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. As per respondent No.3, the petitioner is wanting review of the entire issue decided by the Dealer Selection Board, which would not be permissible. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has misstated and concealed the material facts and that he has only a right to be considered and cannot seek selection. It is then stated that the petitioner has raised a disputed question of fact, which can not be appropriately gone into in ex.ercise of writ jurisdiction. In regard to the plea that respondent No.4 was not resident of District Hoshiarpur, it is stated that he had produced a Civil Writ Petition No. 12962 of 2001 -4- residence certificate from Tehsildar Hoshiarpur along with his application form and on the basis of the same, he was called for interview. It is pointed out that as per the documents produced, respondent No.4 was rightly called for interview and was found suitable for allotment. The residence certificate submitted by respondent No.4 bears the seal and signatures of Tehsildar Hoshiarpur and Executive Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, which was attested by notary on 3.8.2000. Respondent No.4 in his separate reply has also raised preliminary objection that the petitioner has raised a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. While responding to the main plea, answering respondent has stated that he had shifted his residence from Village Simble due to his family circumstances and that too much earlier to the advertisement issued in the year 2000. At that time he had no knowledge whether any advertisement would be issued for retail outlet in District Hoshiarpur. Respondent No.4, accordingly states that he had procured the certificate by producing relevant record. The allegation made in the petition that he was not eligible, thus, is denied and it is pointed out that he had shifted his residence to District Hoshiarpur. While responding to the pleas raised in regard to his residence as made in the petition, respondent No.4 would explain that he was income tax assessee at Phagwara because he was staying there along with his parents. Similar is the explanation to show that he was listed in the voters list at Phagwara. Respondent Civil Writ Petition No. 12962 of 2001 -5- No.4 would point out to his ration card, where he is shown as a resident of Village Simble. Even the Sarpanch of Village had certified all relevant documents. To explain Annexure P-9, it is stated that at that time respondent No.4 was minor and living with his father and would state that he has passed his matric from Phagwara. On the basis of these pleadings, counsel for the parties have made their respective submissions. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 continued to reside at Phagwara and had produced fake residence certificate showing to have shifted to a place in District Hoshiarpur and as such, he was not eligible, but was wrongly considered eligible and allotted the retail outlet. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn my specific attention to the eligibility certificate for award of dealership in open category. As per para 7, the applicant has to be resident of concerned district as stated in the advertisement. It is also provided that the applicant must produce separately a residence certificate issued within previous 6 months of the date of the application duly signed by the competent Government authority as per the attached format (emphasis added). The counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that respondent No.4 was not the resident of District Hoshiarpur and had only produced fabricated documents to show his residence proof. He would, accordingly, plead that the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 be cancelled. His prayer further is that retail outlet be re-advertised inviting fresh applications. Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4, however, have Civil Writ Petition No. 12962 of 2001 -6- opposed this prayer and would submit that documents were duly checked and found authenticated and so respondent No.4 was rightly found eligible and allotted the retail outlet on the basis of merit assessed by the Board. Prima facie, I am of the view that a disputed questions of fact have been raised in regard to the actual residence of respondent No.4. To be fair to the petitioner, some documents are available on record indicating that respondent No.4 was earlier resident of Phagwara, District Kapurthla, but he had shown himself to be resident of District Hoshiarpur. As per the stipulation contained in conditions of the advertisement, the requirement of residence proof, which is to be given separately, is in the form of certificate issued within previous 6 months of the date of application. It may give an indication that a person had to be a resident of a particular district within previous 6 months of the date of application. If respondent No.4 had shifted residence prior to the date of application, he would be eligible to apply and eligible for being considered for allotment of retail outlet. There is no requirement either in law or otherwise that a person cannot shift his residence. Rather shifting of residence is not uncommon. Nobody can be expected to stay permanently at a particular place. One can shift residence for variety of reasons. The person can shift his residence either for business or on account of his service or on account of various such or connected reasons. The residence of a person normally cannot be expected to be static. Perhaps realizing this difficulty now onwards the retail outlet is being allotted without Civil Writ Petition No. 12962 of 2001 -7- insisting on any condition of residence. May be that Respondent No.4 earlier was resident of Phagwara District Kapurthala, but he had shifted his residence at the relevant time to District Hoshiarpur. At the time of filling the form, he was fulfilling the eligibility condition of residence. Respondent No.4 could not be barred for being considered simply because earlier he was resident of some other district. Change of residence from one district to another is not so difficult as if one is to change country where one may have to fulfill different formalities. There is no formality required to be completed for change of residence. A citizen of this country is free to move from one place to another, from one town to another, from one town to a city, even from one state to another. The requirement of residence in this regard in my view would not have to be viewed that strictly to hold the person ineligible especially so when he is running the outlet successfully for the last 10 years. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the allotment at this belated stage in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 28, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE